extend_stl_base

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the file is modified in place or a new file is created, required permissions, or side effects like geometry changes. The minimal information does not suffice.

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, straightforward sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters, earning its place without fluff.

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 tool that modifies a file, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the outcome (e.g., overwrites original file or creates new file) or any return value. While schema covers parameters, the absence of output schema and behavioral details leaves gaps in completeness for an 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?

The input schema provides full coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (stl_path and extension_height). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation but not exceeding it.

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 'Extend the base of an STL file by a specified amount' clearly identifies the verb (extend), resource (base of an STL file), and the specific action (by a specified amount). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'rotate_stl' and 'scale_stl' by focusing on base extension.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any context about prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage without guidance on scenarios where it is appropriate or not.

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