hull_design_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one useful trait: that focused topics avoid re-sending the entire spec reference, i.e., a token/payload-size consideration when choosing a topic. It does not state that the tool is read-only and side-effect-free, nor describe output volume for the 'full' default, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

Front-loaded imperative ('Read first'), then the topic vocabulary, then a one-clause rationale for choosing focused topics. No filler or repetition, appropriate for a small lookup tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is correctly out of scope, and the topic list is nearly exhaustive. But for a 'read me first' entry point it never says what the guide actually covers, how to interpret topics like 'edits' or 'topics', or how it relates to the similarly-named get_hull_spec / land_vehicle_guide siblings.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lone 'topic' parameter. It lists most enum values but explains none of them and omits 'edits' and 'topics' entirely, leaving the agent to guess. It does add one semantic note (focused topics are lighter than 'full'), which lifts it above a pure enum restatement.

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 name plus 'topics' enumeration make it clear this is a documentation/reference reader for hull design, and the topic vocabulary (spec, interior, archetypes, staged, building) distinguishes it from action siblings like save_hull or edit_parts. It stops short of stating outright 'returns hull design documentation', and it does not distinguish itself from the parallel land_vehicle_guide or get_hull_spec sibling.

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?

'Read first' is an explicit sequencing instruction that tells the agent when to invoke this before other operations, which is strong usage guidance. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not condition (e.g., versus get_hull_spec, which sounds like it may overlap).

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