build_cylinder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Requires: centerX,centerY,centerZ,radius,height. Optional: axis', which hints at input requirements but lacks details on what the tool actually does (e.g., whether it modifies the world, requires permissions, has side effects, or returns any output). For a build tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in describing behavioral traits.

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 brief but could be more structured; it front-loads the purpose with synonyms but then lists parameters in a comma-separated format that might be less clear. It's not overly verbose, but the sentence 'Build CYLINDER: tower, pillar, column, chimney, pipe, tube.' could be more direct, and the parameter listing feels tacked on without full integration.

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 complexity of a build tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it affects the Minecraft world, or any error conditions. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 all 9 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds minimal value by listing required and optional parameters but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage tips). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose as building a cylinder with synonyms like 'tower, pillar, column, chimney, pipe, tube', which helps clarify the type of structure. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like build_cube or build_sphere, though the cylinder shape is implied. The verb 'Build' is specific and the resource 'CYLINDER' is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_cube or build_sphere, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only lists required parameters without contextual usage advice, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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