Gear: Section A-A View

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the sparse annotation (destructiveHint: false): it asserts determinism and lists the exact geometry the resulting section contains. However, it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., that the referenced gear/front view must already exist), failure conditions, or how the section interacts with the current drawing state, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose and dependency, the second lists output components. Concise, front-loaded, with no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 description plus schema covers the essential workflow — create a front view, capture metadata, draw the section — and the presence of an output schema covers return values. What's missing is geometric context the agent needs: the reference frame for x_offset, alignment conventions for the section relative to the front view, and behavior on invalid metadata.

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 100% — all three parameters (gear_metadata, x_offset, face_width) already carry meaningful descriptions, including face_width units and the metadata provenance. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the operation — a 'Deterministic side cross-section of a gear created by gear_draw_*_front_view' — and enumerates the output contents (boundaries, bore lines, keyway notch, ANSI31 hatch), which distinguishes it from the front-view drawing tools in its sibling set. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with related section tools like keyway_draw_section.

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?

Usage context is implied through the dependency expressed in the description and the gear_metadata parameter, which states the metadata must come from gear_draw_helical_front_view or gear_draw_spur_front_view. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over section-view or keyway alternatives, so the guidance is adequate but not directive.

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