omni_shape_gable_roof

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

The description provides useful geometry behavior—'Ridge runs along the given axis' and 'Each course is two fills (both slopes)'—beyond the input schema. Yet with no annotations, the burden is on the description to disclose operational behavior; it never says that the tool modifies the world, how existing blocks are affected, how overhang behaves, or what output/return to expect. This is a significant gap for a mutation-style tool.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; each sentence delivers a distinct fact: the shape type, the ridge axis behavior, and the course structure. The wording is a bit jargon-heavy but concise and front-loaded.

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 six parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a sibling family with many shape variants, the description is too sparse to be complete. It omits overhang semantics, meta usage, block behavior, and footprint coordinate requirements, leaving an agent without enough context for reliable invocation.

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 for parameter meaning. It hints at ridgeAxis via 'given axis' and at from/to via 'footprint', but provides no explanation of block, meta, overhang, or coordinate ordering and interpretation. An agent cannot correctly set all six parameters from this description alone.

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 identifies the tool as generating a gable roof over a footprint, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like omni_shape_hip_roof. The phrase 'Ridge runs along the given axis' adds specific geometric scope. A verb such as 'creates' is missing, but the shape-tool family context makes the purpose clear.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: if you need a gable roof, this is the tool, and the sibling name omni_shape_hip_roof hints at the alternative. However, there is no direct statement of when to use this versus other roof or shape tools, and no exclusions or routing guidance.

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