Keyway: Side Section

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation 'destructiveHint: false'. It does not disclose side effects, whether the tool creates an entity or just displays, what the output schema contains, or any constraints. The description is insufficient to understand the tool's behavior during invocation.

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 very concise at one sentence, but this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. It front-loads the core purpose but omits critical details. Every sentence is earned, but more content is needed to be minimally viable.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (6 parameters, 4 required, sibling tools) and the existence of an output schema (which reduces return value burden), the description is still incomplete. It does not explain parameter meaning, usage context, or how this tool fits with siblings. The agent has insufficient information to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but fails to do so. Parameter names like 'center_x' and 'bore_diameter' are self-explanatory, but 'keyway_depth' and 'keyway_width' need clarification, especially since they are optional and nullable. The description provides no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Side cross-section view of a keyed bore' clearly states the tool's output (a view) and the specific resource (keyed bore). It distinguishes from sibling 'keyway_draw_keyed_bore' which likely produces a different view. However, the verb is implied rather than explicit (e.g., 'Draws'), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'keyway_draw_keyed_bore' or other section views. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. This leaves the agent without decision support.

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