build_helix

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what parameters are required/optional. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation (likely yes, given it's a build tool), what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what happens when invoked (e.g., immediate construction, preview mode).

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: first stating purpose with examples, second listing parameters. Every element serves a purpose with zero waste, though it could be slightly more polished in formatting.

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 12-parameter build tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter categories but lacks important context about the tool's behavior, side effects, and relationship to other build tools, leaving significant gaps.

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 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing which parameters are required vs optional but provides no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 builds HELIX/SPIRAL structures with specific examples (spiral staircase, corkscrew, DNA model, twisted tower), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_cube, build_sphere, etc. The verb 'Build' is explicit and the resource 'HELIX/SPIRAL' is well-defined.

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_cylinder or build_torus for similar curved structures. It lists required and optional parameters but gives no context about appropriate use cases or comparisons with sibling tools.

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