dung_cau_thang

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add a genuinely useful behavioral trait: the stair is modeled as real construction rather than a solid block so extracted concrete volume matches reality. It says nothing about what object is created, whether it is undoable, permissions, or what happens on repeated calls with the same start point.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then parameter notes, then a behavioral footnote; paragraphs are short and each carries distinct information. Minor looseness in the example sentence, but nothing that should be cut.

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?

For a 9-parameter creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition is under-specified: the required start point and two of the geometry parameters are never explained, and there is no indication of what the tool returns or how the new element is identified. The geometric model is explained, but not enough to invoke it safely.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does meaningfully define huong_do (degrees, 0=+X, 90=+Y), day_ban (thickness perpendicular to the incline), and the cao_bac*so_bac relationship, but it leaves ten, cao_do, rong_bac, rong_thang, and — critically — the single required parameter diem_dau entirely undocumented.

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 first sentence names a specific verb+resource ('Dung cau thang betong mot ve') and immediately describes the geometry ('ban nghieng cong cac bac nam tren'), which is enough to distinguish it from the wall/floor/column/beam siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the resource is unmistakable.

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 gives a validity constraint ('cao_bac nhan so_bac phai bang chieu cao tang') and an example, which helps a caller parameterize correctly, but it never states when to choose this tool over the alternatives (e.g. dung_dam, dung_san) or any precondition for invoking it. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present.

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