RotoSpider Layout

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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already present, the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context: it is deterministic, never returns a physically invalid layout, converts inch values once to canonical micrometres, applies defaults such as clearance_target_mm=300 and allow_overhang_within_envelope=false, and explains result units. No contradiction with 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 long but appropriately structured with a purpose statement, an Args section, and a Returns section. It is front-loaded with the core intent. A few sentences are redundant or unfulfilled, notably the claim that machine models are listed, but overall the length is justified for 24 parameters.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description provides a thorough account of parameters, unit conventions, modes, and return values. It falls short of a 5 because the machine preset names are referenced but not enumerated, and the response_api v1/v2/v3 distinction is only partially explained.

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 0%, and the description compensates well by documenting mold object shapes, inch aliases, unit conversion rules, custom-machine mode switches, defaults, and response dialect options. However, the machine parameter says available preset models are listed in the tool description, yet no such list is actually present, leaving a real gap for that parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether molds fit together on a rotational-molding machine arm.' It then names the concrete checks performed (rotation-envelope, dead-height, pairwise clearance, riser selection), which leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function. It is also clearly distinct from the only sibling, send_feedback.

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 gives strong usage context: when to scan all presets by leaving machine empty, when custom-machine mode is activated, and how arm_type and response_api affect behavior. It does not explicitly state 'when not to use' or name alternative layout tools, and it claims available machine models are listed but never actually lists them, which is a small guidance gap.

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

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly, and description confirms it relays feedback. No additional behavioral context (e.g., auth, rate limits) provided.

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?

Two sentences plus Args list, efficient and no wasted words.

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?

Simple tool with two parameters; description covers their purpose adequately. No output schema, but return value is not critical for this action.

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 has 0% description coverage; description adds meaning for both parameters, explaining message is required and contact is optional reply address.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'relay' and resource 'feedback to maintainers', distinguishing it from the sibling 'check_mold_layout'.

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?

Explicitly lists when to use (user question, bug report, suggestion) but lacks when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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