generate_reference_box

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that a file is written and that an audit is also performed, which is real behavioral information beyond the schema, but it omits whether an existing file at out_path is overwritten, what the audit checks or returns, and whether the audit result is surfaced or just logged.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. However, at this length it functions more as under-specification than genuine conciseness for a four-parameter generator with no annotations.

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 writes a file and runs an audit, there is no output schema and no description of what comes back (path, audit verdict, watertightness report). Units, overwrite behavior, and the relationship to audit_stl are all absent, so the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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% for all four parameters. The description says nothing about units (mm vs. other), accepted ranges, or what out_path format is expected; 'box' only faintly implies that depth/width/height are edge lengths. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb 'write' and resource 'reference box' are present, and 'known-watertight' hints at its role as a ground-truth calibration artifact. But 'reference box' and 'audit it' are left undefined, and the tool's overlap with the sibling audit_stl is not resolved, so an agent cannot cleanly tell whether this generates geometry or just audits it.

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 indication of when to use this instead of audit_stl, nor any precondition (e.g., 'use before auditing your own models to validate the audit path'). The only usage signal is implicit in the word 'reference'.

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