Analyze 3D model geometry

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the paid nature ($0.002 USDC on Base, x402), payment flow (returns challenge without payment), and that it only performs geometry analysis (no slicing, no side effects). This exceeds typical transparency for read-only tools.

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?

Three sentences tightly packed with essential info: payment, outputs, and payment behavior. No fluff; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the most critical fact (PAID).

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description lists the expected return metrics (bounding box, volume, triangle count, watertight flag, fits-on-bed check) and explains the payment challenge flow. This covers the key context needed to decide when and how to invoke the tool, despite missing explicit error handling details.

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 coverage is 100% for all 5 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'optional printer' for fits-on-bed check, 'without payment' for x_payment), but most parameter meaning is already in the schema. No significant compensation needed.

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 analyzes 3D model geometry with specific outputs (bounding box, volume, triangle count, watertight flag, fits-on-bed check). It explicitly distinguishes itself from slicing ('Geometry only, no slice') and identifies as a sanity check, setting it apart from sibling tools like slice_model.

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 implies usage as a cheap sanity check before printing and explicitly says 'no slice', which guides away from slice_model. However, it does not explicitly compare with check_printability or optimize_orientation, so it lacks full when-not/alternatives guidance.

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