build_generation_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool appends manufacturing constraints, printer-fit limits, and material guidance, and that prompt length is optimized per provider. It does not mention return format or side effects, but for a stateless builder, it is fairly transparent about its behavior.

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 well-organized, starting with the core purpose, then usage guidelines, then parameters. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 purpose and parameters well but lacks explicit mention of return value (e.g., the built prompt string) and does not address error cases or prerequisites. For a tool that outputs a prompt, the omission of return format is a gap given no output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It describes each parameter: requirements (natural language description), material (optional override with example), printer_model (optional with example), provider (optional, controls prompt length budget). These descriptions provide essential semantics beyond bare types.

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 'Build a design-aware generation prompt for original 3D creation' and positions it as 'the best pre-generation tool for original designs', clearly identifying the verb (build) and resource (generation prompt) with a specific scope (original designs), distinguishing it from siblings like build_parametric_prompt or improve_generation_prompt.

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 explicitly recommends use for original designs and explains provider-specific length optimization with examples (openscad, meshy, gemini), providing clear context. It does not directly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the focus on original design implies exclusion of other tasks.

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