suggest_hull_blocks

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

It discloses a genuine behavioral limitation beyond the annotations — that the tool ranks only by angle and deliberately does not resolve orientation choice, placement, or seam tightness — which shapes how an agent uses the result. The trailing 'Read-only.' merely restates readOnlyHint and adds nothing, keeping it from a 5.

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 with the ranking behavior, then trigger, then limitations with sibling handoffs — good ordering with no filler except the redundant 'Read-only.' sentence already carried by annotations.

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?

Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists, and the description covers the key caveat that results are angle-only and must be combined with inspect_view/check_seal. The only gap is silence on how 'limit' shapes the response, which the schema partly covers.

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 100%: 'normal' specifies world [x, y, z], y-up/z-forward, and non-unit-length tolerance, and 'limit' specifies 1-20 with a default. The description only restates 'outward normal' and never mentions the limit parameter, so it adds essentially nothing over the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Rank the game's slope block families (wedges, pyramids and inverse pyramids by slope ratio)' against an outward normal. The ranking basis (closeness of normal match) and the inclusion of the choosing rules make it unmistakably distinct from the inspection/validation siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use it when placing hull slopes by hand') and then explicit exclusions with named alternatives: the angle cannot pick pyramid vs inverse, position, or watertightness — 'check those with inspect_view and check_seal.' This is the strongest form of when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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