rig_pieces

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 hints at return content (triangles, centre, bounds, extents, twins) but never states that it is read-only, whether it is idempotent, or what triggers the 'twins' detection, leaving side-effect and safety expectations unset.

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 brief sentence, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity: the parenthetical field list is cryptic and under-specified rather than efficient, so the sentence does not earn its place as usable documentation.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is the only source of information, yet it does not state the operation, the parameter meaning, or the conditions under which it applies. It is inadequate for a tool in this dense sibling set.

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 single parameter 'obj' has 0% schema description coverage and is never referenced in the description. Its meaning (an object name? a file path? an ID?) is left entirely to guesswork, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 is a noun phrase describing a domain concept ('a parts dump's pieces ... and twins') rather than stating a verb+resource. It never says whether invoking the tool lists, extracts, or returns pieces, so an agent cannot distinguish its action from siblings like rig_part_line or rig_facts.

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 conditions, and no mention of any alternative tool. Nothing tells the agent in what situation rig_pieces should be chosen over the many other rig_* / blueprint_* siblings.

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