fab_create_project

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

The description discloses that the tool creates a local directory and explicitly states it does not communicate with a printer or TNT, which adds useful context beyond the annotation hints. It does not cover duplicate-name behavior or filesystem permissions, but the annotations and output schema reduce the burden.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core purpose and add one useful exclusion. There is no filler, repetition, or tangential detail, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and annotation hints, the definition is largely sufficient for correct invocation. The description lacks broader workflow context, such as when to create a project relative to other fab tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no parameter-level detail, but schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented. The phrase 'local project directory' mildly clarifies that name becomes a directory, but not enough to raise the score above the baseline.

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 action and resource: creating a local project directory. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list parts, export STL/3MF, or run DFM checks. The printer/TNT negation further reinforces its role as a project-creation, not fabrication-output, tool.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name a sibling to prefer in other cases. The purpose implies it is an initial setup step, and the printer/TNT negation provides a partial when-not, but direct workflow guidance is missing.

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