suggest_hull_blocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral caveat (the normal angle alone is insufficient for several decisions, so the tool only ranks candidates), but it says nothing about read-only vs mutating behavior, side effects, or what the ranked output represents.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The only weakness is the dangling reference to 'the selection rules,' which assumes external context the agent may not have.

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 values need not be described. The remaining gap is that the description defers to unnamed 'selection rules' and omits any treatment of the limit parameter, leaving an agent without enough to use the tool confidently beyond the basic call.

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. It clarifies 'normal' as an outward x/y/z direction, which adds real meaning, but the optional 'limit' parameter (default 6) is never mentioned in the description or 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rank real block slope families') and names the input that drives the ranking (an outward x/y/z normal). It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from near neighbors like preview_hull or list_hull_presets.

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 sentence about the angle alone being insufficient to choose pyramid vs inverse, location, or watertight joint gives useful context on the tool's limits. However, it points to 'the selection rules' without providing them and never names an alternative tool or a concrete when-to-use condition.

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