add_rack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses substantial detail: standard tooth form formulas, extrusion direction along +Y, profile plane, defaults, and return fields. It still does not cover document-state side effects or error behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then structured into geometry, parameter, and return sections. Despite its length, every sentence provides useful design or invocation information without repetition.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is complete enough: it documents all parameters, return fields, meshing relationship, and geometric conventions. No essential invocation detail is missing for this primitive-creation tool.

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 fully compensates by explaining every parameter: teeth (>=1), module (mm and circular pitch), height (extrusion thickness along +Y, default 6), width (rail base-band thickness, default 10), pressure_angle (deg, default 20, 0<pa<45), placement ([x,y,z] mm), and name (default 'Rack').

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a linear gear rack (a spur gear's straight counterpart) as a solid.' It explains the geometry and relationship to spur gears, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like add_gear and add_sprocket.

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 clear contextual usage: a spur gear meshes with this rack when their pitch values match, and length sizes the rail for travel. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose add_rack over add_gear or other siblings, nor does it state exclusions.

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