cad_generate_spacer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is generated but does not mention whether an STL file is produced, how outputDir/filename are used, units expected, or constraints like innerDiameter < outerDiameter. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It adds no filler, though it could include behavioral context without much extra length. The structure is efficient but slightly under-specified.

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?

This is a generation tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains what kind of part is generated but not how the output is delivered, what constraints exist, or what defaults apply. An agent would lack essential context to invoke it correctly, especially around file output and parameter validation.

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 description coverage is 67%, so the schema already explains most parameters like innerDiameter and outerDiameter. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only confirming that these are through-hole dimensions for a spacer. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting for the covered parameters, though filename and outputDir remain undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource: it generates round or hexagonal standoffs, spacers, or bushings with a central through-hole. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cad_generate_bracket or cad_generate_knob, which focus on other part types.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cad_generate_bracket or cad_generate_knob. An agent must infer usage solely from the mention of standoffs/spacers, with no stated exclusions or conditions.

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