create_finger_joint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Create' without explaining whether the tool modifies existing components, requires prerequisites, or has any side effects. There is no additional context beyond the action itself.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with this complexity; conciseness should not sacrifice necessary information. It earns a middle score for being brief but incomplete.

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 tool has 9 parameters, an output schema, and sibling alternatives, yet the description provides almost no context about how to invoke it correctly. It lacks any mention of parameter meanings, defaults, units, coordinate systems, or relationships between components. This is far from sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 9 parameters. It only mentions 'two components' which loosely maps to board1_id and board2_id, but it adds no meaning for the many other parameters like depth, width, offset, or num_fingers. The description is entirely inadequate in this dimension.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('finger joint (box joint) between two components'), which unambiguously identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling joinery tools (create_mortise_tenon, create_dovetail) by naming the joint type.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_mortise_tenon or create_dovetail. The description implies usage through the joint type name, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative suggestions.

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