cut_opening

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical behaviors: it deliberately ignores world points due to rounding errors, uses library-accurate widths for piezas, warns on depth mismatches, returns exact placement data, and makes no modifications without confirm=true. This is thorough for a tool with no annotation support.

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 dense but every sentence provides essential information: purpose, measurement details, why world points are avoided, library behavior, return value, and dry-run mode. It is well-structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with no redundant content.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description covers most key aspects: what it does, how to measure, why certain parameters exist, return value, and side-effect-free mode. It is missing explicit descriptions of handle_muro and jambas, and does not mention any prerequisites beyond draw_wall, which prevents a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clearly explains distancia, ancho, pieza, and confirm (including units and axis measurement). However, handle_muro and jambas are not described; while handle_muro is somewhat guessable, jambas is a boolean whose effect is not explained, leaving a gap.

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's function: it opens a real opening in a wall created by draw_wall, specifically to accommodate doors or windows. It uses a specific verb ('abre') and resource ('muro hecho con draw_wall'), and the context distinguishes it from sibling tools like cut_corner or insert_block.

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 explicit when-to-use context: after drawing a wall, for placing doors/windows. It explains key measurement rules (meters, along the wall axis) and mentions the dry-run mode with confirm=false. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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