analyze_shape

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only analysis by describing returns but does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify the state. The description is adequate but could be more transparent about side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively concise with two paragraphs plus an Args section. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the first paragraph is a list of returns that could be slightly more streamlined.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description comprehensively lists all return values and explains usage context. It fully covers what the tool does and why to use it, leaving no major gaps for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains that 'name' is an object with a Shape (e.g., 'Pad001') and 'doc_name' is the document name with empty string defaulting to active document. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema titles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Detailed topological analysis of an object's shape' and enumerates specific return values (shape type, volume, area, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_sketch_diagnostics or inspect_object by focusing on shape geometry from operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description advises using this tool to 'understand the geometric result of a feature — especially useful for diagnosing why a boolean or pocket operation produced unexpected geometry.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.