create_collision_proxy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it creates box proxies, sizes them to world bounding boxes, and names them, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies existing objects, creates new objects, or is destructive to same-named proxies). It adds some value but lacks detail on the operation's impact.

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 with no waste. The action and naming convention are front-loaded, and the caveat about being generic is concise. Every word adds value.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the creation logic, naming, and generic nature. Missing details like return values or error conditions are minor given the simplicity, and the tool's purpose is clear enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 explain both parameters. It explains prefix's role in naming ('{prefix}{name}') but does not explicitly define 'handles' (only implies they refer to objects through 'for each given object'). No default behavior, acceptable values, or constraints for handles are mentioned, leaving the parameter meaning incomplete.

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 the verb (create), the resource (a simple axis-aligned box collision proxy), and the scope (for each given object, sized to world bounding box, named with prefix). It distinguishes from siblings like create_object by specifying the collision proxy purpose and naming convention.

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?

The description provides context that it is a 'generic starting point, not tuned to any specific game engine's collision format yet', implying use for initial proxy creation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool compared to alternatives, nor does it name any alternative tools.

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