skill_generate_city_district

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states mode 'plan' is no-mutation and mode 'queue' is not-yet-executed, indicating no actual generation occurs. It also mentions calling out deeper native gaps, implying diagnostic output. This is strong disclosure for a planning tool.

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 concise and well-structured, with purpose, modes, composition list, KB reference, and example. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids fluff, though the example is somewhat redundant with the mode 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?

Given 12 parameters, no schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It provides mode guidance and an example, but doesn't explain most parameters or the structure of the output. The KB reference offers deeper reading but doesn't substitute for inline parameter definitions.

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 only mentions 'brief' and 'mode' in the example and text, but the other 10 parameters (style, density, use_pcg, block_size, size_blocks, content_path, include_hlod, district_name, include_mass_traffic, include_world_partition) are not described at all. This is a major gap for an agent to correctly configure the tool.

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 plans a native-aligned city/district generation workflow, with specific modes (plan/queue) and a concrete example. It distinguishes itself from other skill_ tools by focusing on city/district generation and composing multiple Unreal systems. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling skills like skill_generate_playable_slice, so minor deduction.

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 explains the two modes (plan returns no-mutation plan, queue returns structured not-yet-executed queue) and provides an example invocation. But it doesn't specify when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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