wall_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it explains the placement geometry, socket-pitch spacing, count override, and skip behavior. It does not disclose side effects such as interaction with existing walls or the default y-level, but the core construction behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences carry all of the essential placement geometry and parameter nuance with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded and the override/gap behavior is provided as a clearly separated second sentence.

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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward construction command but omits some context an agent might need: the default y/height, whether existing pieces are affected, how the default count is derived, and what happens after the run is created. These gaps are not covered by annotations or an output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the most important parameters: x1/z1/x2/z2 form endpoints, piece is the 'one piece type', count overrides computed count, and skip leaves gaps. The optional y parameter is not explained, which is a minor gap.

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?

Describes a straight run of one piece type between coordinate endpoints at socket pitch with the long axis along the run, which is a specific and meaningful operation. It is clear, but it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives such as ring or stack, so differentiation from siblings is implicit rather than stated.

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 the tool should be used for straight runs ('Straight run... long axis along the run') and hints that skip creates gaps, but it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and does not route the agent to alternatives. Usage context must be inferred from the operation described.

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