Vulcan Triangulations & Surfaces (.00t / .tri)

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

With only idempotentHint in annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the detailed info return fields, the elevation and containment semantics, and that load/unload affect Vulcan's 3D graphics screen. It does not specify permission needs or error behavior for load/unload, but the core side effects are surfaced.

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 front-loaded with the tool's scope and then uses a compact action list with the relevant parameters inline. Every line adds useful information without repetition or filler.

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?

For a six-action tool with no output schema and no schema parameter descriptions, the definition covers each action's purpose and the inputs each requires, plus the detailed fields returned by info. It could be more complete by stating the return shape for list, elevation, and point_inside, but an agent can infer those with reasonable confidence.

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 maps `name` to the file-specific actions and explains that `points` expects coordinate arrays, including [[x, y], ...] for elevation and [[x, y, z], ...] for point_inside. It leaves `name` formatting conventions unspecified, but the key parameter semantics are supplied.

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 identifies the resource domain as 3D triangulations, topography surfaces, and pit shells, and it enumerates the specific operations available. It is distinguishable from siblings such as block models or design, though it does not explicitly call out those sibling boundaries.

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?

Each action is paired with a concise description of what it does, giving clear context for choosing list vs. info vs. elevation vs. point_inside vs. load/unload. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative-tool routing.

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