geometry_build

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

The description mentions that the tool generates the actual geometry and returns a build status, but it does not disclose potential side effects, whether it modifies state, or behavior on repeated calls. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and could provide more insight.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The docstring-style listing of arguments and returns is well-structured but could be slightly more compact.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential use case but lacks details about return value format, error conditions, or relationship to other build-related tools.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with defaults but adds little beyond the schema: it clarifies that geometry_name defaults to building all, but does not explain the purpose or constraints of each parameter in detail.

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 that the tool builds the geometry sequence, distinguishing it from sibling tools that add or modify geometry features. It uses a specific verb ('build') and specifies the resource ('geometry sequence') and its role in generating actual geometry.

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 explicitly states that this tool must be called after adding/modifying geometry features, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternatives.

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