bridge_rectangle_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: it is non-mutating ('Does not mutate Renga'). However, it says nothing about what the returned plan looks like, whether the operation is deterministic, or how errors are surfaced, so the disclosure is incomplete.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding, and the core action is front-loaded before the non-mutation caveat. The brevity is efficient, though it borders on terse given how much is left unexplained.

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 4-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. It never explains what the plan contains, what units the dimensions use, or how the result should be fed into apply_plan, leaving the agent without enough to use it confidently.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning for depth, width, height, or thickness. Units (the defaults suggest millimetres) and how the four values relate to the four walls/floor are never stated, so the schema and description together leave the parameters under-specified.

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?

States a specific verb (Prepare) and resource (a four-wall/room/floor operation plan), and the phrase 'operation plan' implicitly links it to the sibling apply_plan/validate_plan family. The wording 'explicit generic' is slightly jargon-heavy but the agent can tell it constructs a plan rather than executing one.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no indication of where the produced plan goes next (e.g. apply_plan or validate_plan), and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is the negative statement that it does not mutate Renga, which hints at a pre-apply step but leaves the workflow to inference.

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