add_sphere

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 only states that a sphere is added but says nothing about side effects (e.g., whether existing geometry is modified), return behavior, or required conditions. This is entirely inadequate for a mutation tool.

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, short sentence with no wasted words, which is technically concise. However, it is so under-specified that it does not serve as an adequate tool description. The sentence earns its place but leaves critical information uncovered.

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 has 5 parameters (4 required), no schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that is not referenced. The one-line description is grossly insufficient for an agent to understand what inputs mean, what the operation does beyond a vague action, or what to expect. This is far from complete.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the five parameters (r, pos, tag, dims, geom_tag). It adds no meaning beyond the bare schema field names. The tool has required parameters that remain completely unexplained.

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 clear verb ('Add') and resource ('a sphere to a geometry sequence'), which establishes the fundamental purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_block or add_cylinder, so it lacks the explicit scope that would merit a 5. It is still unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (add_block, add_cylinder, etc.). It mentions no prerequisites, no context, and no exclusions. An agent has no basis to select this tool over alternatives.

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