rupa_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 goes beyond that by disclosing the exact nature of the output: per-object mesh stats, scene bounding box, and warnings. This clarifies what the agent can expect back, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences: the first packs a comprehensive list of output items, and the second adds a short rationale. It is concise and the most critical information (what the tool returns) is front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly philosophical but not wordy, so it does not detract from clarity.

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?

For a read-only measurement tool with a single optional parameter, the description provides a solid overview of the return contents (per-object metrics, scene bbox, warnings). Since there is no output schema, this is the only source of what an agent will receive. It could be slightly more explicit about the output format (e.g., JSON structure) but otherwise covers what an agent needs to expect.

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 only parameter 'ruang' is fully described in the schema with a clear explanation (workspace name, each has its own blend scene) and default value. The description does not mention this parameter or add any additional semantics. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no extra value for parameter understanding.

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 the tool provides numeric measurements for each mesh object, enumerating specific metrics (triangles, vertices, n-gons, non-manifold edges, loose vertices, area, size, location, scale, applied scale, materials) plus scene bounding box and warnings. This is a specific, concrete resource-and-verb definition that distinguishes it from measurement-adjacent siblings like rupa_cad_ukur (CAD measurement) or rupa_lihat (view).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any preconditions (e.g., selection required), exclusions, or alternative tools. The final sentence ('This is what makes the result precise') vaguely implies it is for precise measurement, but it does not tell the agent when to prefer it over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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