build_line

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does ('build a straight line of blocks') but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether it overwrites existing blocks, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on execution failure. The example adds some context but doesn't cover operational 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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the core purpose with examples, and the second provides a concrete example with coordinates. It's front-loaded with the main functionality, though the example could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and provides an example, but lacks behavioral transparency, error handling information, and output expectations. For a building tool with multiple parameters, more operational context would be beneficial.

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%, providing comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'blocks' and giving an example coordinate range, but doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints, or provide additional semantic context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb ('build') and resource ('straight line of blocks between two points'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like build_cube or build_sphere by focusing exclusively on linear construction. It provides concrete examples of applications (paths, roads, fences, etc.) that reinforce its distinct functionality.

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 implicitly suggests usage contexts through examples ('Perfect for paths, roads, fences, bridges...'), but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like build_cube or build_cylinder. It provides a clear example of a diagonal line use case, offering practical guidance without naming specific sibling tools or exclusion criteria.

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