parse_scad_parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the extraction process and output content, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive. This leaves ambiguity about side effects.

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 efficient with three clear sentences covering purpose, behavior, and usage context. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects. However, it does not mention the return format or any edge cases, leaving room for improvement for complete understanding.

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 has one parameter with 0% description coverage. The description only repeats the parameter name and a generic type ('OpenSCAD source code string'), adding no additional meaning or formatting details beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Parse' and the resource 'parameter variables from OpenSCAD code', with specific details about what is extracted (values, units, descriptions, ranges). It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_scad_code and validate_openscad_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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this after generating OpenSCAD code to discover which parameters can be adjusted.', providing clear context and purpose. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives.

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