compile_scad

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

Discloses that it uses a local OpenSCAD binary, supports BOSL2, and returns the STL path. The tip about surface() timeout adds behavioral context. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well, though it could mention if the tool is idempotent or any side effects like file creation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by details. It efficiently uses a few sentences without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the special tip more clearly from the core description.

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?

Covers all necessary aspects: input (code or file), process (compile with OpenSCAD), output (STL path), and a special case (surface() requiring higher timeout). Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value and usage context.

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 input schema provides minimal parameter descriptions (only type and default), but the description fully explains each parameter: scad_code and scad_path as alternatives, timeout with default and a recommended increase for specific use cases. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states it compiles OpenSCAD code into an STL file, specifying that it takes source code or a file path, and returns the path to the generated STL. The verb 'Compile' and the resource 'STL file' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from siblings like validate_openscad_code or analyze_scad_code.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool (to compile SCAD to STL) and a specific tip for surface() operations requiring increased timeout. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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