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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic 'add' operation. It does not mention side effects like entity creation, persistence, or whether it is undoable. Annotations are all false, providing no safety hints, and the description adds no additional context such as constraints on positions or how the wall is rendered.

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 a single, compact phrase with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and easy to read, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and a one-line description, the agent lacks vital context about the tool's functionality, return value, relationship to other tools, and usage scenarios. The description is too brief to cover the tool's complexity.

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 only 13% (only 'material' has a description). The tool description itself does not mention any parameters, leaving 7 parameters completely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to construct the required 'positions' array or interpret optional fields like 'maximumHeights'.

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 '沿路径添加墙体' translates to 'Add wall along path', which specifies a verb ('add'), a resource ('wall'), and a key constraint ('along path'). This clearly distinguishes it from general 'add' tools like addBox or addMarker, though it could be confused with addCorridor. Overall, it conveys the basic purpose effectively.

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 provides no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as addPolyline or addCorridor. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria. The agent is left without guidance on choosing this tool over siblings.

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