civil3d_alignment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It outlines each action but omits side effects (e.g., delete is destructive, creation requires a polyline). It does not mention permissions, mutability, or output characteristics. The description is insufficient for safe agentic usage.

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 sentence with a bulleted list, efficiently conveying the resource and actions. No extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Slightly more structure (e.g., grouping actions) could earn a 5.

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 (9 parameters, 6 actions, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain conditional parameter requirements (e.g., station/offset for conversion actions, polylineHandle for create). An agent would struggle to invoke the tool correctly without trial and error.

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 100%, so parameters are already described in the input schema. The description does not add context beyond listing actions; it does not clarify which parameters apply to which actions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the primary job.

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?

Description clearly states the tool manages Civil 3D alignments and enumerates specific actions (list, get, create, delete, station_to_point, point_to_station). This differentiates it from sibling tools like civil3d_corridor. However, the verb 'Manage' is generic; a more active verb could improve clarity.

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?

Description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists actions but does not explain scenarios or prerequisites (e.g., when to use get vs list, or when to use create vs delete). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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