fill_build_chamber

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to re-establish basic mutation safety. It adds useful behavior: duplication until full, packing, return of new model IDs, and partial-fill support. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether existing models in the scene are also packed or moved, and does not state that original models remain untouched.

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 sentences with no filler: the core action is front-loaded, the return value is stated, and the optional behavior is given in a conditional clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, return value, and a key optional parameter, which is helpful given no output schema. However, with five parameters and no output schema, it leaves important context unstated: how 'full' is determined, whether existing scene models are considered, and the roles of spacing/wall distance parameters. It is adequate but not complete.

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 only 40%, so the description is expected to compensate. It adds meaning to `fill_to_height_mm` but does not explain `model_spacing_mm` or `distance_from_wall_mm`, which remain undocumented in both the schema and the description. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description only partially fills the 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 uses a specific verb ('Duplicate') and resource ('given models'), states the goal ('until the SLS build chamber is full and pack them'), and gives the return value (`new_model_ids`). It also distinguishes itself with 'SLS only', which separates it from sibling tools like fill_build_platform.

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 description explicitly limits the tool to SLS builds, which tells an agent when not to use it. It also explains that `fill_to_height_mm` is for partial fills. It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the SLS-only constraint provides clear usage context.

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