create_schematic

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

The annotations contain no safety or read-only hints, leaving the description to carry the full burden. The description mentions 'empty .asc' but does not describe permissions, side effects, or constraints. Given the presence of a large sibling list, the behavioral disclosure effort falls short.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with an appositive phrase ('empty .asc') and a helpful naming convention example. Each element is essential and well-placed.

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?

Given no output schema, the description must carry the full burden for this simple tool. Given a schema and annotations that are lean, the description remains incomplete, a shortcoming that undermines its completeness.

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?

The schema covers only a single parameter at 100% coverage, and the description does not provide supplementary semantics for it. The description's reference to 'iterative editing' doesn't add any extra meaning that might otherwise be conveyed in the schema itself.

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 the verb 'create', the resource 'schematic', and the scope 'empty .asc', which unambiguously identifies the operation. It is unambiguous and clear in its intent, even though it lacks an explicit distinction from deeper 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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool, and the phrase 'Prefer schematic_capture for exact sizes and redundancy' explicitly names an alternative tool, finding the semantic gap in the introductory clause. This is an explicit when-other-alternative reference that adds clarity to the usage context.

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