feedback-silhouette

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions it produces a 'flat silhouette' and 'proportion/symmetry' feedback, but does not disclose important behaviors such as whether the tool modifies the scene, renders images, or requires specific object selection. For a feedback tool, it's unclear if it returns analysis data or captures images. This is a significant gap for an evaluation tool.

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 concise, one sentence. It front-loads the key concept (flat silhouette) and adds a memorable tagline ('the form eye'). No wasted words, but the tagline adds little functional value. It is appropriately sized.

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?

This tool has 3 parameters with zero schema description coverage and no output schema. The description gives no details on return values, parameter behavior, or workflow nuances. For a feedback tool that likely outputs evaluation results, the description is incomplete. The tool appears related to many feedback siblings, and no distinctions or operational details are provided.

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. However, the description does not mention parameters at all. The input schema includes 'res' (resolution), 'object', and 'preset' (with enums), but none of these are explained in the description. The preset enum has a useful title, but description adds no meaning beyond that.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: generating a flat silhouette from preset angles and analyzing proportion/symmetry. It also distinguishes it from siblings like feedback-quality, feedback-topology, and other feedback tools by describing itself as 'the form eye.' This provides a specific verb+resource+scope, differentiating it from the broader feedback family.

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 a usage context (form evaluation via silhouettes) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like feedback-quality or feedback-orientation. No explicit exclusions or alternative mentions are present. The phrase 'the form eye' hints at a specific use case, but guidelines are not fully articulated.

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