omni_shape_pyramid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add meaningful behavior: 'hollow=true skips the interior of each layer' and '1 fill per layer' explain construction details. However, it omits other behavioral context such as whether the tool overwrites existing blocks, how layer heights are determined, or what errors or results are returned.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core shape and layer behavior, then immediately addresses the hollow option. Every phrase earns its place.

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 5-parameter shape-generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how the pyramid's stepped layers are derived from `baseRadius`, what coordinate frame `center` uses, whether the operation modifies the world destructively, or 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 only clarifies the `hollow` parameter. Parameters like `baseRadius`, `center`, `block`, and especially `meta` are left to inference from their names and schema defaults, which is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 tool as generating a 'stepped square pyramid' with '1 fill per layer', which is a specific shape resource and distinguishes it from sibling cylinder, sphere, box, and roof tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'create' or 'build', but the intended purpose is still 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as omni_shape_solid_box or omni_shape_sphere. The shape name implies its use case, but the description does not state conditions, exclusions, or preferences that would help an agent route between the shape tools.

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