wall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the high-level action. It does not say whether the wall is solid, how 'vertical' is interpreted in world coordinates, whether existing blocks are replaced, or what side effects occur.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler: the verb and object appear immediately. It is concise, though the brevity omits context that other dimensions need.

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 four required parameters, nested object structures, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully guide invocation. It leaves unstated the orientation convention, block parameter format, and height semantics that an agent would need to call the tool correctly.

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 from, to, height, or block. The phrase 'between two points' loosely maps to from/to, but it does not explain coordinate roles, the meaning of the height value, or that block can be a single block or a weighted list.

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 states a specific verb ('Build') and a clearly identifiable resource ('a vertical wall along the line between two points'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like line, sphere, and cylinder. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it misses the top score.

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 on when to use wall versus line, fillBox, outlineBox, or the other shape tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection conditions are provided.

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