nbc_wall

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

Annotations provide only a title and no read-only or destructive hints, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses create/list behavior and the NBC thickness gate, but it does not explain side effects, validation behavior, failure modes, or required context beyond that.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the domain, command alias, supported operations, and a key constraint efficiently.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description leaves essential invocation details unresolved: exact operation strings, data structure, and the meaning of the NBC thickness gate. With 0% schema parameter coverage and minimal annotation support, this is not enough for reliable tool selection and usage.

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. It hints that 'operation' may be 'create' or 'list' and that data may relate to wall definitions, but it never explains the expected values for operation, the shape of data, or the role of include_screenshot.

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 names the resource (walls) and the supported actions (create/list), and adds a relevant constraint (NBC thickness gate). It is clear enough to distinguish the tool from sibling tools by domain, though 'operations' is somewhat generic rather than a single specific verb.

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 implies the tool is for wall creation/listing with an NBC thickness requirement, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternative tools or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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