mirror

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether mirroring creates a new object or modifies the original, despite the keep_original parameter. It also does not clarify if it works on 2D objects only (given the [x,y] coordinate format) or what happens to the original by default. These are significant behavioral gaps for a mutation-like operation.

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, well-formed sentence that directly states the operation and the axis definition. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no redundant words, and is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity. Every element contributes to understanding the core function.

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 description outlines the main operation and coordinate format, which is adequate for the simplest invocation. However, it omits behavioral details like the default action of keep_original and whether the tool applies to both 2D and 3D objects. Since the output schema exists, return values are not needed, but the missing parameter semantics and behavior leave the agent guessing on how to correctly set all parameters.

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 description adds meaning to axis_start and axis_end by specifying they are [x, y] coordinates in millimeters. However, it does not explain the 'names' parameter (list of objects) or the effect of 'keep_original' beyond its name. Given zero schema description coverage, the description should compensate for all parameters but only covers the two coordinate parameters, resulting in partial semantic support.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mirror') with a clear resource ('objects') and defines the mirror line using the two parameters. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like rotate_object, move_object, and copy_object, since no other sibling mirrors objects. The axis definition is explicitly tied to the parameters, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as copy_object or rotate_object. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. It does not mention any prerequisites, object types, or scenarios where mirroring is appropriate.

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