gunkit_from_modellab

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 discloses the shape of the returned data (moving parts, travel, hinges, hand marks), which is useful, but says nothing about whether it is read-only or mutating, permission/auth needs, error behavior when build_folder is invalid, or any side effects.

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?

It is a single, compact sentence with no filler, and the key content (the parts map) is front-loaded. The noun-phrase phrasing is slightly indirect, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more weight. It partially describes the return content but leaves the input parameter unexplained and the tool's mutation/read behavior, preconditions, and downstream handoff to gunkit_rig underspecified for a one-param 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?

There is a single required parameter, build_folder, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'A Model Lab build's' loosely hints that build_folder identifies a Model Lab build, but the parameter itself is never named or explained — no format, expected path structure, or validity constraints are given.

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 names a specific resource (a Model Lab build's parts map) and enumerates its contents (moving parts, travel, hinges, hand marks), which distinguishes it from siblings like blueprint_to_gunkit. The verb is only implicit — it is a noun phrase describing the output rather than stating 'extract/produce the parts map' — but an agent can reasonably infer the tool derives a parts map from a build.

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 phrase 'ready for gunkit_rig' is a downstream pointer, implying this tool feeds into gunkit_rig, which is a faint workflow hint. But there is no explicit when-to-use condition, no prerequisites (e.g. the build must exist), and no comparison to alternatives such as blueprint_to_gunkit or gunkit_build.

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