Add slcf

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, non-destructive and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing about what the write affects, whether duplicates conflict, or what the ASET-001/ASET-004/OUT-002 rules require — it merely cites rule IDs that are meaningless without another lookup.

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-loaded with the action, with no filler. The bracketed rules line is terse but is an unexplained pointer rather than clearly earning 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 an 8-parameter output-writing tool with no output schema, the schema and annotations carry most of the load, so the description is minimally sufficient. However, the cryptic rule IDs and the absence of any relationship to update_slcf/remove_slcf leave a real gap for correct 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 100%, so the schema already documents id, quantity, plane positions, vector, spec_id and cell_centered. The description only echoes 'quantity and plane position', adding no format, default, or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is this high.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add a slice file output (SLCF)") plus the two things to supply (quantity, plane position), which is enough to distinguish the action. It does not differentiate from the sibling mutation tools update_slcf / remove_slcf, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this versus update_slcf, remove_slcf, list_slcf, or output_add_tenability_slices, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only vaguely directional text is the bulc rule reference, which tells the agent to consult knowledge but not when this tool is the right choice.

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