visual_hull

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely important behavioral trait: the interior is a straight extrusion, so curved surfaces need post-processing. It still omits failure modes (e.g., mismatched silhouette scale/orientation), expected input format, and any cost or permission notes.

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-loads the core operation in the first sentence, then appends limitation and use-case in two short sentences. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical refinement note is slightly terse and the third sentence could be trimmed.

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 an 8-parameter, 4-required geometry tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description explains what the tool does and its main limitation but leaves the bulk of parameter semantics undocumented. It is adequate for selection but thin for correct invocation.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implicitly maps 'front outline' and 'side outline' to the front/side params and mentions shape/height, but leaves at, simplify, threshold, and side_faces entirely unexplained, including the meaning of the 0.01/0.06 defaults.

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 and resource ('make a solid') and defines the exact construction method (front outline extruded intersected with side outline extruded). That method statement distinguishes it from siblings like extrude_profile, loft, and loft_from_masks without needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the target use case ('precise first form of characters, props and vehicles') and prescribes the follow-up workflow ('refine curved surfaces afterwards (sculpt, subdivide)'). It gives clear context but does not state when NOT to use it or compare against an alternative silhouette-based tool.

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