khoet_cua

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. It implies a mutation of existing geometry but says nothing about reversibility, whether the wall is modified in place, permission requirements, or the response shape. For a destructive CAD edit this is a notable gap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact parameter list with no filler. Only the omission of two required parameters keeps it from being fully efficient.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description should do more: two required parameters (rong, cao) are never explained and nothing is said about the result of the cut or how it affects the wall. Adequate for the core action but materially incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 and it partially does: it explains ten_tuong (source object name), khoang_cach (offset from wall start to hole left edge), and be_cua (hole bottom height with concrete values, door=0, window=0.9). It omits the two other required parameters rong (width) and cao (height), leaving them undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb (khoet) plus resource (lo cua/cua so) and constrains it to 'mot buc tuong da dung' (an already-built wall), which implicitly separates it from construction siblings like dung_tuong. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'tren mot buc tuong da dung' implies the prerequisite that a wall must already exist and that its name comes from dung_tuong results, which is real context. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no alternatives offered (e.g. sua_doi_tuong for editing existing geometry).

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