serp_boolean

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

The description discloses that 'tools are consumed', which is a key side effect not covered by annotations (none provided). It omits whether targets are also consumed or replaced, and does not describe the output or whether the operation modifies the scene in place.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with no redundant phrases. Every clause adds value: the operation types, the difference semantics, and the consumption warning.

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?

The description covers the core operation and tool consumption, but lacks details on whether targets are also destroyed, how solids are referenced, and what the tool returns (though an output schema exists). These gaps leave room for misinterpretation in a destructive operation.

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 of 0%, the description compensates by explaining the valid values for 'operation' and the roles of 'targets' vs 'tools' (especially in the difference operation). This adds meaningful context over the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool performs boolean operations on solids, listing the three specific operations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like serp_transform or serp_create_surface, which handle different geometric modifications.

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?

It provides context for when this tool is appropriate (combining or subtracting solids) via the operation list and clarifies the difference operation semantics ('targets minus tools'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases.

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