shell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains face_normals_to_remove and direction semantics, which is valuable, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the original body is modified or replaced), error handling, or limitations (e.g., thickness constraints). It is not misleading but leaves significant 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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then provides essential parameter details without fluff. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's operation, with zero wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (5 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides the core purpose and explains two key parameters. However, it omits critical details like the meaning of 'thickness' (constraints, units), what the tool returns or modifies, and any preconditions. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete for a robust agent decision.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains face_normals_to_remove with an example and direction with allowed values ('inside | outside | both'). However, it does not explain 'body' (an ID likely), 'thickness' (units or constraints), or 'name'. This partial coverage adds meaning beyond the schema but is incomplete for 5 parameters.

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 states the tool's function: 'Hollow out a body.' It specifies the resource (a body) and the action (hollowing). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like extrude, revolve, or fillet, which perform different operations. The verb 'hollow' is precise and 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?

The description implies usage for creating a shell but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool recommendations. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., must be a closed solid) or when not to use it, so usage context is only implied through the purpose statement.

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