perimeter_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by explaining what the count means and the threshold for a hole/loose end. The verb 'Count' implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state absence of side effects or describe the exact return shape. The description provides more behavioral context than most tool definitions.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, the result interpretation is given immediately after, and the optional filter is the final sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential semantics: what is counted, how to interpret counts, and the optional filter. It does not specify what happens when no pieces match or how results are ordered, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema provides only a bare 'piece' string property with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by stating 'Optional filter by piece id,' giving the parameter meaning and usage. It leaves some ambiguity about id format or multiple ids, but the core semantics are clear.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Count open side sockets per wall piece.' It then defines the meaning of the result (2 = sealed, 3+ = hole/loose end), which makes the tool's diagnostic purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes itself from building/placing siblings like wall_run or ring by focusing on checking, not creating.

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 clearly conveys when this tool is useful: to verify a wall is sealed by checking socket counts. It explains the interpretation of values (2 vs 3+), so an agent knows what outcome indicates a problem. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is strongly implied.

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