convex_hull_3d

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the return type ('triangular faces') but omits critical behavioral details such as behavior with coplanar or fewer than 4 points, output format (vertex indices vs coordinates), orientation, and whether the input is mutated.

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?

Single compact sentence with the core action and return value front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 mathematical tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the return structure. It says 'returning triangular faces' but does not specify whether faces are coordinate triples or index triples, nor how degenerate inputs are handled, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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%, and the schema already documents the 'points' parameter with format [x,y,z] and 'at least 4'. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the phrase 'point set'.

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 'Compute' and resource '3D convex hull of a point set', and differentiates from sibling 'convex_hull' via the '3D' qualifier. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or note that it is three-dimensional versus two-dimensional, leaving some inference.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like the 2D 'convex_hull'. Usage is only implied by the name and description.

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