check_seal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return content (connected compartments and a highlighted escape path), a modeling option (door_state closed/open), and a failure mode ("unsupported nearby sealing geometry prevents a confident pass"). It does not state whether the operation is read-only or mention any side effects or permissions.

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 purpose and outcomes are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by tightly packed operational details. Every sentence carries information, though the seed-format enumeration is dense and slightly jargon-heavy.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: what it returns, the seeds contract, the door modeling, and a known failure condition. It falls just short of complete because the 'design' parameter and any permission/precondition details are unaddressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it specifies the exact seeds formats ([[x,y,z],...] or [{name,position:[x,y,z]}]) in integer blocks within the original body frame, and explains when seeds are auto-chosen versus required. door_state is given its closed/open values. Only 'design' is left unexplained, which is a minor 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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Trace finished geometry from interior to outside") and enumerates the three possible verdicts (sealed, leaking, indeterminate), so the agent understands this is a hull-seal verification tool. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent tools like preflight_vehicle or analyze_hull.

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?

Usage is only implied: the seed requirements for generated vs imported drafts and the door_state option hint at when the tool applies, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance or listed prerequisites. No alternative tool is named or excluded.

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