create_fill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the fill becomes 'one block on layer poche', the print mechanism ('drawn with pen-thick lines so it prints solid on the sheet and in the PDF'), and that avoid_openings leaves doors and windows empty. Minor gaps remain, such as interaction with pre-existing fills and prerequisites, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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?

One dense paragraph with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by compact parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler, but the inline parameter explanations run together into a wall of text rather than using clear separation or ordering.

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 5-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers nearly everything a caller needs: units (mm), layer, hole semantics, tone options, scale behavior, and opening avoidance. It does not address repeat invocation on the same area or required drawing state, but an output schema exists to cover return values, so the remaining gaps are minor.

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 — and it does thoroughly. Every parameter gets meaning beyond its schema name: points/holes outline-relationship with wall-specific guidance, tone semantics (black solid, grey lighter), scale as a print-scale denominator with a rationale, and the behavior of avoid_openings. This is exemplary compensation for a schema that is silent.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Solid fill (poché) of an area, as one block on layer poche (mm)'. It grounds the purpose in architectural meaning ('what a plan shows for concrete or masonry cut by the section plane'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools create_hatch and fill_walls without needing to open schemas.

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 conveys the use context — filling areas that represent concrete or masonry cut by the section plane — and implies why this tool exists. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer it over the closely related siblings fill_walls or create_hatch, and names no alternatives or exclusions.

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