dung_san

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the polygon needs at least 3 points and that the slab extends downward from cao_do, but it omits write-operation side effects, permissions, validation behavior, and return information.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then the key parameter constraints. Every sentence contributes directly and there is no filler.

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 4-parameter geometry-creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain day or ten, coordinate units, return values, or side effects, leaving the agent to infer important details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for dinh (ordered [x, y] ring, minimum 3 points) and cao_do (top-surface elevation with slab below), but leaves day and ten unexplained.

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: building a concrete floor slab from a floor-plan polygon. It is clear what the tool creates, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling construction tools such as dung_tuong or dung_mai.

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 explains the required polygon input format but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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