crear_primitiva

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It adds useful behavioral details: the tool returns the object's path ('devuelve su ruta') and states that sizes and positions are in meters. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., an open scene), error conditions, or the mutating nature beyond the verb 'crea'. For a creation tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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: the first sentence states the action and return value, and the second provides essential value enumerations and units. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant 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 moderate complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema), the description covers the core action and return value but omits crucial contextual prerequisites. For instance, it does not mention that a scene must be open (sibling tools 'cargar_escena' and 'cerrar_escena' suggest this is required). It also does not describe the exact format of the returned path or any failure modes. The description is adequate for simple cases but incomplete for an autonomous agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by enumerating allowed values for 'forma' and stating units for sizes and positions ('Tamaños y posición en metros'). However, it does not explain how 'tamano_x/y/z' apply to different shapes (e.g., whether for a sphere they represent radius or scale). The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds limited semantic depth beyond the 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 the tool's function: 'Crea una forma primitiva en la escena y devuelve su ruta' (Creates a primitive shape in the scene and returns its path). The verb 'crea' is specific, the resource 'forma primitiva' is defined, and the list of allowed shapes ('cubo', 'esfera', etc.) further clarifies the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'eliminar_objeto' or 'fijar_posicion'.

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 usage context: it is for creating primitive shapes, and the list of shapes tells the agent what values are acceptable. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative creation methods (e.g., 'cargar_escena' for loading a full scene, or 'crear_sensor_proximidad' for sensors). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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