create_grid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses batch creation, auto-naming behavior, and units (mm). However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions, permissions, or what happens on duplicate names. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 informative and well-structured with a clear introductory sentence followed by detailed parameter documentation. It is slightly verbose (e.g., 'Grids define the column grid system' is somewhat redundant) but generally earns its place without excessive fluff.

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 moderate complexity (batch creation of grid lines with auto-naming), the description covers the essential aspects: parameter format, auto-naming, and batch support. It lacks mention of the return value (e.g., created grid IDs) and coordinate system reference, but these are minor omissions.

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?

The input schema is minimal (array of objects with additionalProperties: true). The description adds rich semantic detail: each grid item requires start_point and end_point (with x,y,z floats in mm) and an optional name. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'grid lines for the structural layout of a building.' It differentiates this tool from all siblings, as no other tool deals with grid lines. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 creating structural grid lines but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites, or ordering relative to other tools (e.g., before columns). It lacks 'when not to use' or context about the design phase.

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