geometry_pipe_oh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does much of it: it discloses the side effects (creates inlet/outlet, wall, and fluid), the empty-session precondition, and the meshing failure mode (no tetrahedral fallback). It even flags a semantic caveat about first_cell_height not being a true normal distance on a curved wall. It stops short of describing permissions, whether the operation is destructive to prior geometry, or revision behavior.

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?

Front-loads the geometry, then constraints, then the optional axial_heights note. Dense and largely waste-free, though the run-on clause about first_cell_height on curved walls is harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the geometry, units, side effects, preconditions, and a key failure mode. The remaining gap is the undocumented numeric/topology parameters (core_fraction, radial/axial cell counts) that an agent must guess at to call this 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% across 11 parameters, so the description is the only source of meaning, and it explains only length, radius, first_cell_height, circumferential_cells, and axial_heights. axial_cells, radial_cells, core_fraction, session_id, expected_revision, and request_key are left entirely undefined, so it only partially compensates 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Build a straight internal pipe with square core and four curved blocks') and pins the geometry (bore centred at origin, z=0 to length, metres). 'internal' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling geometry_external_cylinder_oh, so an agent can pick correctly without opening the schema.

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?

States prerequisites and sequencing explicitly: 'Requires an empty session, then mesh_generate'. It also gives a hard behavioral constraint ('never falls back to tetrahedra') and a validity rule ('circumferential_cells must be divisible by four'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the overset/external case, but the workflow context is clear.

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