cylinder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Build a cylinder' implies a world-modifying action but reveals nothing about side effects, whether it replaces blocks, how hollow behaves, orientation, permissions, or failure modes.

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 blurb is short and scannable, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness for a tool with a nested five-parameter schema. A single three-word sentence does not satisfy the need for informative structure.

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 the schema — nested center objects, weighted block alternatives, optional hollow — and the total absence of annotations or output schema, this description is not nearly complete. An agent is left without crucial semantics about coordinate meaning, cylinder orientation, block selection behavior, or return value.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the five parameters. The schema provides types and requiredness, but the description does not explain center, radius, height, hollow, or the weighted block array semantics, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Build', and a specific resource, 'cylinder', so the agent knows the basic operation. However, it does nothing to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like sphere, wall, line, or fillBox beyond the resource name.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sphere, fillBox, or wall. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the schema and name.

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