spawnpop

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent, mutation, closed-world), so this dimension's bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-annotated context: 'No charge' discloses that approval has no billing cost, and 'one draft per item copy' constrains how many references are set per copy.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the billing note is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows. It is efficiently sized, though the phrasing of the core action is slightly oblique rather than crisp.

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 mutating batch tool accepting up to 40 approvals with three sub-fields each, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage. The description omits what happens on re-approval or whether an approved reference can be replaced, and says nothing about the result of a batch call, which is a substantial gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 tool takes a nested approvals array with itemId, outputId, and copy fields, all undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by explaining where outputId comes from and hinting at the copy concept ('one draft per item copy'), but projectId, itemId, and the copy index range remain unexplained, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 it marks a draft as the reference for the final, which conveys a specific approval action, and the title clarifies it as approving drafts. However, the phrasing 'marks one draft per item copy as the reference its final is made from' is jargon-heavy and the connection to the verb 'approve' is only implicit, so an agent must infer the operation rather than read it directly.

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?

'Use the outputId shown by get_status' gives an explicit prerequisite and names the sibling that produces the required value, which is a useful routing cue. It stops short of explaining when to approve versus when to use draft or generate, and offers no exclusion guidance, so usage is only partially scoped.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety and idempotency, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the 10-credit price per image, the rule that confirmCredits must match the computed total, and that requestId makes a retry free. That is the billing and retry behavior an agent needs before calling a paid mutation.

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?

Three dense sentences with the cost front-loaded and no filler; each sentence adds a distinct fact (price, purpose, confirmation/idempotency rules).

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?

Covers price, confirmation validation, and retry semantics for a paid mutation with no output schema. The shape of the returned drafts is not described, but the operative details an agent needs to invoke it correctly are present.

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%, so the description carries the burden; it explains confirmCredits (validated against items x copies x variants) and requestId (idempotency key) well, but leaves projectId, itemIds, and variants' allowed values (1 or 4) unexplained. Partial compensation only.

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 action (makes low-cost preview images with an AI fit check) and implicitly draws the boundary against buying finals, which separates it from the generate sibling. An agent can tell what this produces without opening the schema.

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?

Explains when it is appropriate — cheap previews so finals are only purchased for what works — which is clear usage context. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g. generate for finals), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the financial side effect (credits are spent), the failure mode when the price changed (nothing charged, price_changed returned), and the retry contract (same requestId returns the same jobs at no charge). This is meaningful added context on a mutation whose annotations only say it is non-destructive and idempotent; it stops short of auth or rate-limit context.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no waste, and the cost consequence leads. The telegraphic fragments ('itemIds may be "approved"') drop context about what "approved" expands to, which costs a little clarity for the brevity gained.

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 credit-spending generator with five parameters, no output schema, and 20% schema coverage, the description covers cost, price-mismatch, and idempotency well but omits what is actually produced (jobs are only alluded to), what projectId scopes, and how 'approved' interacts with the itemIds cap of 40.

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 only 20%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for three of the four required params: confirmCredits as an exact price match, requestId as an idempotency key, and itemIds accepting the literal "approved". projectId and the options object remain undocumented in prose (options is only covered by the schema's own nested description).

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 opens with 'Spends credits' rather than stating that it generates final assets; the actual action is only recoverable from the name and title. It is preoccupied with cost and idempotency mechanics, so an agent learns the consequence of the call faster than its purpose, and no sibling (draft, plan_kit, approve) is contrasted.

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?

It states a hard precondition ('confirmCredits must equal the price of the items') but never says when to call this instead of draft, plan_kit, or approve, nor what must happen first (planning, approval). There are no exclusions or alternative routing for an agent to follow.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuine behavioral facts — no charge incurred and one-hour signed URL expiry — which are not in any structured field, but it omits what the 'ready next-step block' actually contains and any failure behavior for unfinished projects.

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the return-value list is front-loaded after the pricing note. Leading with 'No charge' prioritizes cost over purpose, which is a minor ordering flaw but the sentence still earns its 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract; it lists the file metadata fields and mentions a next-step block, which is a reasonable start. However it does not explain the shape of that block, whether files are paginated, or what is returned when no finished files exist, leaving an agent guessing on edge cases.

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 the single projectId parameter, and the description says nothing about it — no format, no source (list_projects?), no behavior for an unknown or unfinished id. For a tool whose only input is undocumented, the description should compensate and does not.

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 the resource (finished files) and enumerates the payload — signed download URLs, sizes, triangle counts, stud sizes — so an agent can tell this is a retrieval tool for completed project output. It lacks an explicit verb and the title 'Finished files' alone would be vague, but the content list disambiguates from list_projects and get_status.

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 statement of when to call this versus get_status or list_projects, and no prerequisite such as 'project must be finished'. The word 'finished' in the title hints at a precondition but the description never confirms it or tells the agent what happens if the project is still in progress.

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

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: zero cost ('No charge'), the long-poll semantics of waitSeconds returning early on change, and the business rule that 'unjudged never blocks approve'. It stops short of describing rate limits, pagination, or error behavior.

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?

Three tight clauses with no padding; the payload composition and the waitSeconds behavior each earn their space. Leading with 'No charge' is slightly odd ordering, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the returned rows, verdict enum values and balance, which carries much of the return-value burden. However, it omits what projectId identifies and gives no sense of when this tool should be chosen over list_projects or get_files, leaving gaps for a 2-parameter 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain waitSeconds well (0-25, early return on change, default implied) but leaves projectId entirely undefined, so half the parameters remain opaque.

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 concretely states what the call yields: one row per plan item with AI fit verdicts, approvals and balance, which is a specific resource shape rather than a restatement of the name. It never says outright that this fetches project status nor distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects or get_files, so an agent gets the payload but not the routing rationale.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the sibling tools (approve, draft, get_files, list_projects) are referenced as alternatives. The only usage signal is implicit: 'No charge' suggests it is safe to poll, and the waitSeconds note implies polling usage.

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

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful context with the ordering and cost note ("No charge"), but does not explain pagination, what "recent" means, or limits on returned results.

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?

It is extremely short and front-loads a cost signal before the core behavior. The fragmentary style is efficient, though it reads as terse notes rather than a self-contained definition.

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 simple one-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain the result limit, the meaning of "recent", or enough about the returned project list to fully guide 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?

The sole parameter, "limit", has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. The default of 20 and maximum of 50 are only visible in the schema, so the description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 indicates the resource ("projects") and ordering ("newest first"), so an agent can infer this is a listing operation. It lacks an explicit verb and leaves "recent" undefined, but the purpose is still easy to grasp.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase "Your recent projects" implies personal scope, but usage is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it is free ('No charge'), it persists the plan as a project only when an API key is present, and keyless callers still receive the plan, price, and a connect link. It stops short of covering failure modes or rate limits.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact ('No charge') is front-loaded. Each sentence carries distinct information: what it produces, and how persistence depends on an API key.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of telling the agent what comes back: a priced kit with named asset categories plus a link. That is enough to describe the result to a user, though the plan/price structure itself is not detailed.

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 67%, and the description only loosely gestures at the required 'description' parameter via 'one-sentence game idea'. It adds nothing about the genre enum values or what 'style' should contain, which the schema already partially documents, so it neither compensates for nor exceeds the schema.

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 and resource are concrete: 'Turns a one-sentence game idea into a priced kit' and it enumerates the deliverables (GUI, icons, thumbnail, 3D props, music). This is far more specific than the terse sibling names (draft, generate), though it never explicitly states how it differs from them.

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?

Usage is implied by the input/output framing (give a game idea, get a priced kit), and the API-key/no-key branch clarifies the two operating modes. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call plan_kit versus draft or generate, nor any stated prerequisites beyond key presence.

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