lay_flat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the action but omits key behavioral details such as whether the file is modified in-place, any side effects, or required permissions. The user is left unsure about the tool's impact.

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, well-crafted sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose without any extraneous words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the action.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic action but lacks information about return values or confirmation of success. It does not state whether the tool modifies the file in-place or returns a new file path.

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 single parameter 'stl_path' is fully described in the input schema with 'Path to the STL file.' The tool description does not add any additional semantics, such as file format restrictions or expected behavior for invalid paths. Baseline score of 3 applies due to full schema coverage.

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 tool rotates the model to align its largest flat face with the XY plane. It specifies the operation (rotate) and the resource (model), but does not mention that it applies to STL files, which is inferred from the parameter name. It distinguishes from sibling 'rotate_stl' which likely rotates by arbitrary angles.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rotate_stl' or 'center_model.' There is no mention of prerequisites or context, such as 'use this to prepare a model for printing by leveling it on the build plate.'

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