mod_shell

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds the geometric effect and common usage, but does not disclose side effects such as stack/modifier behavior or prerequisites. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: two short sentences per language, front-loaded with the core behavior and use cases. No filler or redundant explanation.

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 modifier with 4 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and destructiveHint annotation, the description is sufficient to understand what it does and when to use it. It lacks return-value detail, but no output schema is present and the tool is a scene-mutating modifier.

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 100%, so innerAmount and outerAmount are already fully documented in the schema. The description merely repeats their purpose without adding units, defaults, or additional constraints.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb+resource: give a surface thickness by generating inner and outer walls. It is distinct enough from other mod_* siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or draw a contrast.

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?

Provides clear use cases: '常用于做实体、管壁' / 'Use it to make solids or tube walls.' It does not mention when not to use it or compare with alternative modifiers like extrude or lathe.

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