build_parametric_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool returns an enhanced prompt with OpenSCAD-specific instructions for structured code, named variables, comments, and material-aware limits. This adds behavioral context beyond the basic purpose, though it does not cover potential side effects or performance implications.

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 compact, with the main purpose in the first sentence and a clear usage directive in the second paragraph. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded, though the phrase 'enhanced prompt' appears twice.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description does not specify the return type (e.g., a string). It does cover the tool's function and parameters adequately for a simple generation tool, but omitting the output format leaves room for ambiguity. The contrast with one sibling helps, but more sibling differentiation could improve completeness.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), so the description must compensate. It briefly explains each parameter: 'requirements: Natural language description of the desired part,' 'material: Optional material override (e.g. petg),' and 'printer_model: Optional printer model ID (e.g. bambu_a1).' This adds meaning beyond the raw schema types but is not highly detailed.

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 that the tool 'Build a prompt optimized for parametric OpenSCAD code generation,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It directly contrasts with the sibling tool build_generation_prompt, indicating distinct functionality for generating editable OpenSCAD code versus mesh files.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this instead of build_generation_prompt when you want the AI to generate editable OpenSCAD code rather than a mesh file.' This provides clear usage context and alternatives.

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