fill_walls

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses several non-obvious traits: openings remain empty while outlines are rebuilt around cuts, the style enum semantics (solid = poché with tone black/grey, hatch = diagonal at angle), and that a call replaces the fill/hatch drawn by a prior fill_walls call for the same layers. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, so a 4; it falls short of a 5 only because it leaves scale's effect and any output-schema specifics undisclosed.

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 two focused sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose before diving into style semantics and replacement behavior. Every clause carries information — no filler or repetition of the tool name. It is slightly denser than strictly necessary, but well-organized and efficient, so a 4.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (5 optional parameters, two enum-driven, output schema present). The description covers the purpose, both style modes, the replacement semantics, and the layer scoping, which is most of what an agent needs to call it correctly. The presence of an output schema relieves the description of documenting return values. The main completeness gap is the unexplained 'scale' parameter and the lack of explicit sibling differentiation, so a 4.

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 for four of five parameters: it explains 'layers' (selects from 'murs'/'cloisons'), 'style' (solid vs hatch), 'angle' (hatch angle), and 'tone' (black/grey poché). However, 'scale' is entirely unexplained, which is a real gap given nothing else documents the schema. Covering most but not all parameters at 0% coverage earns a 3, not higher.

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: 'Fill (or hatch) the walls of the active level in one call', and details the core behavior — rebuilding wall outlines around doors and windows while keeping openings empty. It explains both styles (solid poché, diagonal hatch). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the closely-related siblings create_hatch and create_fill, but the 'active level' + layers scoping makes the purpose materially clear, so a 4 is warranted.

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 the usage context — filling walls of the active level in one call for layers 'murs'/'cloisons' — but provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, nor any exclusions. Given siblings like create_hatch, create_fill, and merge_walls exist in the same family, naming when this should be preferred would help. The guidance is effective but left to inference, so a 3.

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