solid_torus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists parameters and does not state that the tool creates/adds an entity, how it interacts with the drawing, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a construction 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the essential geometric parameters in a compact format.

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 lack of annotations and 0% schema parameter descriptions, the description is underspecified. It does not explain the expected behavior (creating a solid), how the center coordinates are interpreted, or any constraints. An output schema exists, but the description still fails to provide sufficient context for safe and correct invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description maps parameters to geometric concepts: 'center (cx,cy,z)', 'ring radius', and 'tube radius'. This clarifies that 'radius' refers to the ring radius and 'tube_radius' to the tube thickness, adding meaning beyond the raw parameter names.

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 identifies the tool as creating a '3D solid torus' and lists its defining parameters (center, ring radius, tube radius). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling solid primitives like solid_box and solid_cylinder, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'create' or 'draw'.

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 other solid primitives. The description merely states the shape and parameters, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name. There are no alternatives mentioned or exclusions.

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