solid_wedge

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only describes the geometric definition. It does not state whether this creates a new entity, affects existing geometry, or requires specific coordinate systems. The action ('creates') is only implied by the tool name and siblings.

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 that states the purpose and parameter roles without padding. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

Although the tool is a simple primitive, the description is too minimal for safe invocation. It does not explain the wedge's orientation, placement relative to the base corner, or the behavior of the tool (e.g., whether it adds to the current drawing). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the lack of usage and behavioral details leaves significant gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by mapping all parameters to meaningful roles: (x,y,z) as the base corner and (dx,dy,dz) as sizes. This adds value over the schema's bare number types, though it lacks orientation details about the wedge's slope.

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 creating a 3D solid wedge (ramp) with specific construction parameters (base corner and sizes). It distinguishes this from sibling solid primitives like box, cylinder, and sphere by naming the unique shape.

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, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied context is the 'ramp' hint, but it does not explicitly state when a wedge is appropriate.

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