omni_shape_line

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavior burden. It discloses the core behavioral trait: a Bresenham algorithm placing blocks along a line. However, it omits what happens with existing blocks, error/return behavior, or any permissions/limitations, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core mechanism and follow with practical use cases. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent can guess from/to are coordinates but lacks clarification of the coordinate system, what meta means, how the block default interacts, and what a successful invocation returns.

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%, and the description does not meaningfully explain from, to, meta, or block. The '3D' mention implies from/to are coordinates and the examples hint at block use, but meta is completely unexplained and no parameter-specific guidance is given.

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 states the resource and operation clearly: it creates a 3D Bresenham line via place_block operations, and gives concrete use cases (paths, fences, wires). It is clearly a line-drawing shape tool and understandable against sibling shape tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself from.

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 phrase 'Use for paths, fences, wires' gives explicit, practical guidance on when to select this tool. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative shape tools, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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