solid_box

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the geometric meaning of parameters but does not mention effects on the drawing (e.g., entity creation, current layer), edge cases (negative sizes), or return value. Still, for a simple primitive, the core behavior is clear.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the key term '3D solid box' and immediately follows with parameter semantics. There is zero fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple solid primitive, the description covers the essential geometry and coordinates. It does not explain whether the tool creates a new entity or returns a handle, but the output schema exists to handle that. Overall, well-suited to the tool's low complexity.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining that x,y,z are the base corner and dx,dy,dz are sizes, with dz along Z. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 defines the tool's purpose as creating a 3D solid box, specifying the base corner and dimensions. It distinguishes from 2D draw tools (e.g., draw_rectangle) and other solid primitives (solid_cylinder, solid_sphere) without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description: it is for creating a rectangular solid box. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over alternatives like extrude_profile or draw_rectangle, nor any conditions or exclusions.

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