bounding_volume_hierarchy_builder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses algorithmic behavior, performance characteristics, and cost (0.040 USDC on Base L2), which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is side-effect-free, what input format it requires, or what it returns.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core purpose, algorithm, and performance target, with the cost as a compact parenthetical. There is no wasted wording.

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?

Despite the precise algorithm description, the tool has a generic 'payload' string parameter and no output schema, and the description does not explain what input the BVH builder expects or what result it returns. An agent would not know how to construct a valid payload or interpret the response, so the description is incomplete for a complex geometry tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the two parameters. The description adds no tool-specific meaning to 'payload' or 'paymentSignature' beyond the generic schema text, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Generates'), a concrete resource ('AABB Bounding Volume Hierarchy'), and the algorithm used ('SAH splits'), plus a clear performance target ('sub-millisecond ray queries'). This clearly distinguishes it from connected siblings like calculate_bounding_box_3d or convert_bounding_box_format.

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 phrase 'for sub-millisecond ray queries' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended use case is unambiguous enough for an agent to route to it.

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