shell_body

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It states that the top face is removed, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not mention other potential side effects, such as whether the operation is destructive or if it modifies the body in place.

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 conveys the essential purpose without any wasted words. It is highly concise and immediately understandable.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the operation and a notable side effect (top face removal). However, it lacks details on parameter usage, potential errors, or return values.

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%, but the description does not explain the meaning of the 'body' or 'wall_mm' parameters beyond what's in the schema. 'body' is just a string (likely a body identifier), and 'wall_mm' is a positive number. The tool name and context help slightly, but the description should clarify these.

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 the tool's purpose: hollowing a body into an open-top vessel by removing the top face. It uses specific verbs and nouns, and distinguishes from sibling tools that create primitives (create_box, create_cylinder) or handle other operations.

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 implies use when wanting to hollow a body, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist (e.g., create_box, create_component) but their relationship is unaddressed.

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