create_circle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions return type ('edges') but omits critical traits: whether the circle is added to the model, how missing layer/material parameters are handled, error conditions (e.g., non-positive radius), or whether the operation is reversible.

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 efficient—two sentences with no extraneous words. It front-loads the action and key inputs, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.

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's simplicity and the 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate for missing annotations, output schema, and parameter semantics. It fails to address layer/material usage, default behaviors, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a production 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?

The description merely echoes parameter names (center, normal, radius) already documented in the schema, adding no new constraints or context. It ignores segments, layer, and material, which lack schema descriptions (33% uncovered). The description does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Create'), the resource ('circle'), and the key inputs ('center point, normal vector, and radius'), aligning with the tool name. It also specifies the output ('Returns edges'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like create_arc or create_polygon.

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 such as create_polygon or create_arc. It lacks any context about preferred scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent blind to selection criteria.

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