solid_cylinder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It specifies the cylinder's orientation (height along Z) and base center, but does not mention side effects such as adding an entity to the drawing, return values, or constraints like positive radius.

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: '3D solid cylinder: base center (cx,cy,z), radius, height along Z.' Every word adds value, efficiently conveying the essential geometry without unnecessary detail.

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?

The description covers the core geometry parameters sufficiently for a simple primitive, and an output schema exists (though not shown). However, it omits drawing-level context such as whether the cylinder is inserted into the current drawing or how it interacts with current layers/settings, leaving some gaps for a 5-parameter tool.

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 adds meaning by clarifying that (cx, cy, z) is the base center and height is along Z, but it does not explain defaults, units, or constraints for individual parameters, leaving the schema's bare number types only partially enriched.

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 that the tool creates a 3D solid cylinder with parameters for base center, radius, and height. It identifies the specific resource (cylinder) and distinguishes from sibling solid primitives, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'create'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like solid_box or solid_cone. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name.

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