create_polygon_prism

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool creates a prism with specified parameters and returns object info, but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether it modifies existing objects) or permissions. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured, with clear sections for args and returns. Every sentence serves a purpose, including practical examples. No wasted words.

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 7 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, parameter meanings, and return value. It lacks error conditions or constraints beyond ranges, but it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: sides (range 3-64), radius (>0), depth (>0), name (optional), location (XYZ), rotation (XYZ radians), scale (XYZ). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Create an N-sided regular prism' and gives concrete examples like hex sockets and octagonal columns. It distinguishes from round cylinders, making the tool's purpose very 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 provides explicit usage scenarios (e.g., 'for a hex socket cutter on an M3 button-head screw, use sides=6') and contrasts with round cylinders. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or describe when not to use it, leaving room for improvement.

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