rupa_cad_ukur

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context by explaining why two numbers are always reported together, i.e., to indicate what is lost when the shape is sent to the web. This goes beyond the annotations but is limited in scope—no discussion of error handling, permissions, or side effects (though unlikely given read-only).

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the key measurements. The second sentence adds a purposeful explanation without unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure supports quick comprehension.

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?

The description comprehensively lists the return values (volume, area, edge/face counts, bounding box, mesh approximation cost) despite the lack of an output schema. It explains the rationale for the pair of numbers. It is mostly complete for a read-only measurement tool, though it omits potential error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., shape existence).

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?

Schema description coverage is 67% (nama and ruang have descriptions; toleransi does not). The description does not add any parameter-specific details. It mentions tolerance implicitly but does not explain its semantics or valid range. With moderate coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 specifies the tool's function: measuring exact volume and area, edge and face counts, bounding box, and mesh approximation cost at a tolerance. It names specific resources and metrics. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'rupa_ukur' or other measurement tools, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or distinctions from related tools like 'rupa_ukur'. A user would have to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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