shell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by stating the inward wall direction and a concrete failure mode: large thickness relative to features fails and the tool reports it. It does not discuss side effects on the document or whether a new named body is produced, but the main behavioral risk is disclosed.

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 definition is two tight sentences, front-loads the core operation, and uses the second sentence for the important failure constraint. No sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need description, and the core shelling operation and failure condition are covered. But with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is still incomplete because doc and name semantics are omitted and the mutation side effects are not described.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it adds useful meaning for thickness (millimeters, inward) and remove_faces (indices or face selector, see list_faces). However, the required doc and name parameters are not explained at all, leaving half the required parameters without semantic guidance.

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 and resource: hollow out a solid, leaving inward walls of a given thickness and opening specified faces. It also points to list_faces for face selection, making the operation distinguishable from generic boolean or pocket operations.

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 hollowing operation is implied by the verb, and the description notes that large thickness relative to features fails, but it does not explicitly say when to use shell versus alternatives like pocket, hole, or boolean. The reference to list_faces is parameter guidance rather than usage guidance.

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