vba_create_reference_geometry

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

With no annotations, the description must reveal behavior. It only states the output is VBA code but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the code modifies the model. The agent cannot infer what happens upon invocation.

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, front-loading the main action. It is efficient but slightly under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters. Still, it earns a high score for lack of unnecessary 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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, many siblings, no output schema), the description fails to explain the output format, parameter relationships, or typical use cases. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 50%; descriptions exist for references, offset, and angle. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'planes, axes, points' hinting at geometryType. Overall, it neither harms nor significantly enhances parameter understanding, meeting the baseline.

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 VBA for creating reference geometry, listing specific types (planes, axes, points). This distinguishes it from sibling VBA tools like 'vba_advanced_features' or 'create_feature_vba' by focusing on reference geometry creation.

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 such as 'create_feature_vba' or 'generate_vba_script'. The absence of context for when to choose this tool reduces its helpfulness for an AI agent.

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