nbc_opening

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

Annotations provide only a title, with no readOnly or destructive hints, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The description does not disclose whether the tool mutates the drawing, validates dimensions, inserts openings, or merely reports them. The 'NBC door width gate' hints at some filtering or restriction but is too vague to be actionable.

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 concise line with no filler or redundant sentences. It is front-loaded with the core concept, and the parenthetical adds domain-specific context. However, the cryptic acronyms and lack of explanatory structure keep it from being a top-tier concise description.

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 tool has three parameters, a required operation string, and no behavioral annotations, yet the description does not explain what action is performed, what inputs are expected, or what effects occur. Although an output schema exists, it does not clarify invocation semantics. The definition is too incomplete for an agent to reliably select and call this tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for the three undocumented parameters, but it does not explain 'operation,' 'data,' or 'include_screenshot.' The required 'operation' field is especially problematic because its allowed value is a plain string with no enums or examples. The phrase 'YQArch ad/aw' may allude to operation values, but it is too obscure to serve as parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource domain (doors/windows) and mentions a specific constraint ('NBC door width gate'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like nbc_wall or nbc_drawing. However, it lacks an explicit action verb — it never states whether the tool creates, modifies, or queries openings. The parenthetical 'YQArch ad/aw' is cryptic and does not clarify the operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool. The only contextual hint is the 'NBC door width gate,' but it is not explained in terms of when this tool should be selected.

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