add_box

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose side effects, coordinate system details (e.g., bottom-left and top-right corners), or whether it modifies an existing layout. The units 'micrometers' are mentioned but insufficient for behavioral understanding.

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 a single sentence, which makes it concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is appropriately front-loaded but lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points or parameter breakdown).

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?

With 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema present (content unknown), the description is insufficient. Missing information on return value, error cases, and the relationship between coordinates (e.g., x1,y1 and x2,y2 as opposite corners) makes it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 only mentions 'rectangle (micrometers)' and 'layer/datatype', but fails to explain what x1,y1,x2,y2 represent (e.g., coordinates, corners). The default datatype=0 is not hinted.

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 specifies the verb 'Add', the resource 'rectangle (micrometers)', and the context 'on GDS layer/datatype'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_polygon or add_label, indicating it's for rectangles.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when to use add_box instead of add_polygon for rectangles, or mention prerequisites like an open layout.

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