solid_sphere

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the geometric definition. It does not reveal that this is a creation operation, that it will add the sphere to the current drawing, or any coordinate system or unit assumptions. The behavior is largely implied and under-specified.

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, tightly-structured sentence that front-loads the core concept and lists parameters in a clear notation (cx, cy, z, radius). No wasted words 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 3D solid creation tool with no annotations and many siblings, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain how the sphere is placed, what the output is, or how it relates to other operations. The output schema exists but isn't visible here; still, the description should at least state that it creates a solid object in the active drawing.

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 description explicitly names all four schema parameters and adds meaning by grouping cx, cy, z as the center and radius as the sphere's radius. However, it doesn't clarify units, coordinate plane, or optionality beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., z defaults to 0 in schema). Given 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves some ambiguity.

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 resource as a 3D solid sphere and lists its defining parameters (center coordinates and radius). While it lacks a verb like 'creates' or 'draws', the meaning is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling solid primitives like solid_torus or solid_box, but the sphere concept is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling solid creation tools (solid_box, solid_cylinder, solid_cone, etc.). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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