geogebra_create_construction

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

In the absence of annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It details important auto-behaviors such as automatic hiding of auxiliary circles, visibility and playback of animation slider, and naming conventions. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like file overwriting, error conditions, or whether the tool requires authentication, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured with bullet points for auto-behaviors and a formatted example. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose and key advantage. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 with 3 parameters and a nested object, the description covers the core usage, format, and automatic behaviors. An output schema exists, so the absence of return value explanation is acceptable. However, it misses mention of error handling, dependencies (e.g., GeoGebra installation), and validation specifics, which would make it fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear example of the design dict format, explaining keys like perspective, commands, styles, animate, and speed. It also describes the name parameter as an output filename stem and output_dir as a directory. While helpful, it could offer more detail on styles structure and command string syntax.

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 'Create a construction from a structured design dict', identifying the action and the resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling geogebra_draw_mechanism by noting the advantage of no JSON string wrapping, making the purpose and differentiation unambiguous.

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 states it is 'Preferred over geogebra_draw_mechanism for AI clients', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude other siblings like geogebra_run_commands or geogebra_new_construction, so while the guidance is strong, it is not exhaustive.

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