add_concentric_mate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool returns created mate's metadata, but omits details on permissions, side effects (e.g., modification of assembly), or state dependencies. However, for a straightforward mate creation, the basic behavior is implied, earning a mid-range score.

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-structured with a summary, typical use, argument details, return info, and related tools. It is slightly long but efficiently front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence contributes value, though minor redundancy exists (bilingual repetition could be streamlined).

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description thoroughly covers all aspects: purpose, parameter meanings, usage context, related tools, and return value. It is fully adequate for correct invocation without requiring external resources.

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 is essential. It explains each parameter: component1_name and component2_name with examples ('bracket_L-1'), entity1_id and entity2_id with locale-sensitive string examples, and the align parameter with allowed values. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose: 'Mate concéntrico — alinea ejes de dos entidades cilíndricas/cónicas.' It uses a specific verb ('add concentric mate') and resource ('cylindrical/conical entities'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like add_mate_by_face_position and stack_components.

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 provides typical use cases ('Uso típico autopartes: alineación de ejes de barrenos') and explicitly references related tools, explaining when to use alternatives ('add_mate_by_face_position for box-style components, stack_components for fully-constrained stacked pair'). This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus others.

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