cst_create_cylinder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Create a cylinder' which implies object creation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it modifies existing components, requires a specific project state, or has any side effects. The inner_radius tip is minimal. For a tool with no annotations, more transparency is expected.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The first states the purpose, the second adds a crucial usage tip. No fluff or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has 11 parameters (6 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is sparse. It does not explain coordinate context, typical component setup, or how parameters interact. However, schema descriptions cover all parameters, so the essential details are present. The description could be more helpful for a complex tool but meets minimum viability.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds the tip 'Use inner_radius=0 for a solid cylinder,' which repeats the existing parameter description. It does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 that the tool creates a cylinder in CST Studio, which is a specific verb-resource pair. However, it does not differentiate from sibling creation tools like cst_create_brick or cst_create_cone, relying solely on the name for distinction. A clearer purpose with differentiation would merit a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only includes a note about using inner_radius=0 for a solid cylinder, which is a parameter hint rather than usage context. No when/when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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