omni_shape_sphere

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a concrete algorithmic trait—rasterization as x-runs per (y,z) row—which is useful. However, it does not state that this is a world-modifying operation, how hollow affects the shape, or any side-effects, leaving several behavioral 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?

The description is two short sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the shape and variant, the second adds a precise technical detail. Every word earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

Despite having no output schema, no annotations, and five parameters with zero schema descriptions, the description offers only a brief shape label and a rasterization hint. It does not explain return behavior, how center or radius are used together, or what the hollow flag does. An agent would need additional context to invoke this correctly beyond guessing common shape-tool conventions.

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 five parameters. It usefully explains that radius can be an integer or a 3-element array (ellipsoid), but center, block, hollow, and meta are left undescribed. The 'x-runs per (y,z) row' hint implies a mapping but doesn't concretely bind params to behavior, so the compensation is incomplete.

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: a sphere, with an ellipsoid variant via a 3-element radius, and the sibling tool set makes its purpose distinctive. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'creates' or 'generates', so it is just short of the top standard.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over other shape tools like omni_shape_solid_box or omni_shape_cylindr. The ellipsoid detail is a parameter semantics point, not a usage criterion. An agent must infer selection solely from the tool name and sibling context.

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