gunkit_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool writes a confirmed map to a file, which is one side-effect signal, but it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, file format, overwrite behavior, or whether the confirmation step has side effects. The garbled phrasing further reduces clarity.

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 two sentences but is poorly structured: the first sentence is a fragmented noun phrase with an unhelpful parenthetical list, and the second jumps to writing a file. It is not excessively long, but the wording is garbled and the key action is buried. Front-loading and clarity are both weak.

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?

For a tool with three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits prerequisites, expected inputs, output format, and relationship to gunkit_rig beyond a single mention. An agent has almost no basis for calling this tool correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0% and there are three parameters: name, model, and action. The description mentions 'a model' and 'to confirm', but does not explain what 'action' accepts, what 'name' refers to, or how 'model' should be formatted. With no enum hints either, parameter semantics are effectively undocumented.

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 gestures at a purpose ('first parts map', 'write the confirmed map to a file for gunkit_rig') but never states a clear verb+resource. The parenthetical 'forward, units, the bolt face, each part, each mark' is cryptic and does not help distinguish gunkit_draft from siblings like gunkit_rig or blueprint_part. An agent cannot reliably infer what the tool actually does.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. The only hint is the destination mention 'for gunkit_rig', which implies a downstream consumer but not when this tool should be chosen. With dozens of sibling tools, this absence leaves the agent with no routing information.

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