cavalry_create_primitive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a creation/mutation action but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the shape is selected, returned, or if permissions are needed). The description is adequate but lacks details about return behavior, which is expected for a creation tool without output schema.

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 two sentences long with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides crucial guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes it easy to parse quickly.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it creates and why to prefer it over the alternative. It does not mention the return value (e.g., shape ID) or selection state, which would improve completeness. However, for a relatively simple tool with well-described parameters, it is largely sufficient.

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% (both 'name' and 'generator' have descriptions). The description adds no additional detail beyond the schema, meeting the baseline. It does not enhance or contradict the schema, so a score of 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 clearly states the tool creates a basicShape with a pre-attached generator, using specific verb ('create') and resource ('basicShape'). It also distinguishes from the alternative two-step process (create_layer + set_generator), which directly differentiates from siblings like 'cavalry_create_layer' and 'cavalry_set_generator'.

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 explicitly provides a preference directive: 'Prefer this over create_layer + set_generator for primitives.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus the alternative, offering clear usage guidance without ambiguity.

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