dung_tuong

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a creation/mutation tool. It never says whether the wall is appended to the current model, which layer it lands on, whether the operation is undoable, what happens if diem_dau/diem_cuoi coincide or cross existing geometry, or what identifier is returned. Only the geometric semantics of the inputs are 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 text is short, front-loads the purpose sentence, then presents a compact parameter glossary. Nothing is padded, though the parameter lines are telegraphic enough that some semantic edges (units for cao/cao_do, coordinate order for the point pairs) require inference.

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 6-parameter geometry-creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers most input semantics but leaves the operational envelope incomplete: no return value, no preconditions, no interaction with existing geometry. It is adequate to build a wall with sensible defaults, but not complete enough to predict side effects.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description does the heavy lifting: it defines diem_dau/diem_cuoi as the [x, y] centerline endpoints in meters, explains day as wall thickness with typical values (0.22 load-bearing, 0.11 partition), and clarifies cao as height typically equal to story height plus beam depth, and cao_do as the base elevation. Only the optional 'ten' (name) parameter is left unexplained, but its meaning is self-evident.

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 in Vietnamese: draw a straight wall on the floor plan ('dung mot buc tuong thang tren mat bang'). This is clearly distinguishable from structural siblings like dung_cot, dung_dam, and dung_san by object type, though the description never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dung_cot, dung_dam, or khoet_cua, nor any prerequisites (e.g., must a floor plan exist first, which layer is targeted, must a story level be defined). The only implicit guidance is that thickness conventions differ for load-bearing vs partition walls, which is parameter semantics rather than usage routing.

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