make_lattice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: res is called out as a precision knob with an 8x-slower cost at 128, and the resulting voxel edge is reported back. However, it says nothing about persistence (whether a part is saved under name), permissions, or what a failure looks like, leaving meaningful gaps for an operation that creates geometry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, then parameters are documented as tight labeled lines with no filler. Every line adds a fact an agent needs (defaults, units, speed tradeoff) rather than restating the schema.

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 9-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers parameters well but leaves the agent unsure what the call produces (a stored part? geometry?) and what 'name' does. It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient for a tool this complex.

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% and parameter titles are bare, so the description is the sole source of meaning, and it delivers: primitive enumerations, the number-vs-[x,y,z] polymorphism of size_mm, the size/res voxel relationship, and the period_mm-defaults-to-cell_mm coupling. Only 'name' goes unexplained, which is a minor omission against otherwise excellent compensation.

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 opening line states a specific verb+resource: 'Model free-form geometry with signed distance fields: lattices, porous structures, implicit surfaces.' An agent can tell this is the geometry-generation tool, distinct from sibling utilities like check_mesh or describe_model. It does not explicitly contrast with make_part, which is the most likely point of confusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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 operational guidance ('Start at 64', 'omit it to use cell_mm as a cube') but never says when to choose this tool over make_part or when a lattice vs. shell is appropriate. Usage is implied through parameter notes rather than stated selection criteria.

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