civil3d_corridor

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 mentions actions but does not disclose side effects (e.g., 'rebuild' modifies the corridor) or prerequisites (e.g., corridor must exist). The description lacks detail on behavior beyond the action list.

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 clear list of actions, front-loaded with the purpose. It is efficient but could benefit from more structured formatting.

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 2 parameters and no output schema. The description fails to explain what each action returns or the context needed (e.g., drawing must have a corridor). Given the multiple actions, more detail is required for completeness.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats the actions from the enum without adding extra meaning, format, or constraints for parameters like 'name'.

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 states the tool manages Civil 3D corridors and lists specific actions (list, get, rebuild, get_surfaces, get_feature_lines, compute_volumes), distinguishing it from sibling tools like civil3d_alignment or civil3d_profile.

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 lists actions but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., civil3d_alignment for alignments). Usage is implied by the action enum, but no when-not-to-use information is given.

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