check_openscad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source. It discloses the return type and the effect of include_paths, but does not explain what happens if OpenSCAD is not installed or any potential errors. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 compact and front-loaded with its purpose. The Args/Returns format is structured and free of redundant information. Every sentence contributes.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return type. Missing details about error behavior when OpenSCAD is absent, which would be relevant for a verification tool, but overall it is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'include_paths' as 'Include searched paths in response', adding meaningful semantic meaning beyond the boolean schema. This fully clarifies the parameter's effect.

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 states 'Verify OpenSCAD installation and return version info' with a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on model/render operations.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to avoid using it. The usage is only implied by the verb 'verify'.

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