cad_generate_battery_cover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool emits both .scad and .stl files and mentions the use of parametric modeling, implying customization. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like file creation or the need for permissions on output directories, nor does it state any limitations or edge cases (e.g., the tool might require certain minimum dimensions). With no annotations, this is a moderate gap, but the description adds useful context about outputs.

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 sentence that is dense but not overly long. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists features. It could be slightly more concise by removing redundant phrasing, but it is structured effectively for quick skimming. No wasted words.

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 generation tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description provides key context: the type of part, the features included, and the output formats. It does not explicitly explain return values (but since no output schema exists, it should), yet the mention of emitting files covers what the agent needs to know about side effects. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does, though it could benefit from noting that it returns a confirmation or file paths.

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 has 100% coverage for all 13 parameters, each with a description and defaults where applicable. The description does not need to explain each parameter, but it adds value by stating that the design is parametric and lists key features (snap-fit, ribs) that map to parameters like clipWidth, hookOverhang, and gripRibs. However, it does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already gives, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it generates a parametric 3D-printable battery cover, listing specific features (snap-fit clip, retention prongs, grip ribs) and output formats (.scad and .stl). It distinguishes from sibling CAD generation tools by specifying the exact part type (battery cover) and the included features. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 implies when to use this tool (for battery covers for TV remotes, controllers, toys) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the sibling tools are named and the description's focus on battery covers gives clear context. It could be improved by explicitly saying 'use for battery covers, not for brackets or knobs' but the context is sufficient.

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