civil3d_surface

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It lists actions including destructive ones (e.g., delete) but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or operational constraints beyond the action names. Minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. First sentence states purpose, second enumerates actions. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 has 15 parameters and 11 actions, the description is too brief. It lacks details about preconditions, return values (no output schema), or usage context for each action. An agent would need additional information to invoke the tool correctly for most actions.

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 high (87%), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond listing actions; it does not explain parameter usage or relationships. The schema itself provides descriptions and enums, so the description adds limited value.

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 resource (Civil 3D surfaces) and action (manage), and lists specific operations. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on other Civil 3D objects like alignments or corridors.

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 when to use the tool (for surface management) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare with alternatives among siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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