rib

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

Given no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it is not scriptable, returns a specific error code, and explains the root cause (read-only collection). It also implies that all invocations will fail, which is critical transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that fronts the critical information ('NOT SCRIPTABLE') and provides the error code and alternative in a compact form. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a stub tool with 5 parameters but no real functionality, the description covers everything needed: the error behavior, the reason, and the recommended workaround. No output schema exists, but the tool only returns an error, so the description is sufficient and complete.

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?

The description does not detail each parameter, but it states that the tool always fails, implying parameters are irrelevant. With 0% schema coverage, it adds the essential context that input values don't affect the outcome, though it could have explicitly stated 'parameters are ignored'. Still, the value added is 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?

The description explicitly states the tool's purpose: it always returns a structured error because the underlying RibFeatures API is read-only and lacks createInput/add. It clearly identifies the behavior (error return) and distinguishes it from functional tools by emphasizing its non-scriptable nature.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when not to use the tool (since it always errors) and suggests an alternative approach ('Model ribs as thin join-extrudes instead'). This is clear and actionable, helping the agent choose a correct tool.

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