boolean_verified

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that the tool measures volume changes, checks against expected_change, detects the two specific failure modes, and warns about the handle retention trap where the result keeps the target's handle. This is rich, behavior-revealing context beyond any structured data.

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 dense but every sentence carries meaningful information about behavior and failure modes. It is front-loaded with the core measurement concept, though the single-paragraph structure makes it a bit heavy. Still, there is no wasted text.

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 tool's complexity (boolean verification with multiple failure modes and a handle trap) and the presence of an output schema, the description is thorough and covers most key behaviors. The main omission is tol_pct semantics, which is important for calibration, and tool_handles could be clearer. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and use the tool effectively.

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. It explains expected_change in detail (mm3, derived from the shape), mentions target_handle as the receiving solid, and touches on op via SUBTRACT/UNION/INTERSECT semantics. However, tol_pct and tool_handles are not explicitly described, leaving gaps in parameter understanding for a tool with no schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a boolean operation that verifies its own effect by measuring volume before/after and comparing to expected_change. It explicitly distinguishes itself from plain boolean operations by catching short cuts and missed cuts, which is a specific and unique purpose among sibling tools.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to verify a boolean cut actually succeeded and trust the result. It contrasts with 'a plain boolean' that reports false successes, implying the alternative of standard bool_subtract/union/intersect, though it does not explicitly name them or state when not to use the tool.

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