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

With no annotations, the description must disclose that applying a template likely modifies the project directory, yet it says nothing about side effects, overwriting behavior, or required initial state. This is a significant gap for a potentially mutating operation.

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, effective sentence that front-loads the action and lists all template options. There is no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

The tool has a nested customize parameter and no output schema, yet the description omits return behavior, side effects on the project, or preconditions. Given the likely mutating nature and the lack of annotations, the agent lacks sufficient information for safe 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 schema already provides descriptions for projectPath and templateName, and the description repeats the enum values without adding semantics for the customize object. It adds nominal value by framing templates as 'pre-built' but does not explain how customize interacts with the template application.

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 uses the verb 'apply' and clearly identifies the resource as 'pre-built game template' while enumerating all valid template names. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_project or load_project, which focus on different operations.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as create_project or generate_scenario. It implies use for pre-built templates but does not state prerequisites (e.g., an existing project) or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that multiple entities are created, but gives no details about side effects, prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), error handling, or behavior of the autoIncrement feature. This is minimal transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that communicates the action (create), scope (multiple), and supported entity types. It is front-loaded with the verb and contains no 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?

This tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description is only one sentence. It lacks important context such as when to use batch_create over single create tools, behavioral expectations, and any notes about efficiency or limitations. The description is incomplete 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 coverage is 80% and each parameter has a description in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond listing entity types, which is already covered by the entityType enum in 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 description clearly states the tool creates multiple entities at once and lists specific entity types (maps, events, items, skills, armor, weapons). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_map and create_event, which focus on single entities.

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 phrase 'at once' implies a batch use case, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of the single-entity creation tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without revealing how 'natural language commands' are interpreted, whether existing events are overwritten, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a creation 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 a single sentence, directly states the core purpose, and contains no redundant or filler words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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 tool with 7 parameters, nested objects (graphic, commands), and no output schema or annotations, the description is too terse. It fails to explain the required structure of events, the semantics of triggers, or what the result of creation means. Significant contextual gaps remain.

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 description adds meaning to the 'commands' parameter by suggesting they are natural language instructions, which is not evident from the schema. The schema already provides basic descriptions for most parameters (71% coverage), so the description's extra hint for the key 'commands' parameter earns it a score above the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Create an event') and the target ('on a map'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_map and create_project. The qualifier 'with natural language commands' adds a distinctive feature that differentiates this event-creation tool from other creation tools.

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 implies usage: it should be used when creating an event on a map. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_map, generate_scenario), nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only says 'create', which hints at mutation but does not mention side effects, permissions, return values, or anything about existing data. This is insufficient for a mutation 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the purpose. It contains no fluff and 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?

While the schema documents parameters well, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., what 'current project' means, whether the map is persisted, any side effects). For a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is a minimal but acceptable level of completeness, though more context would help.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (name, width, height, parentId) with 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Create a new map in the current project' clearly identifies the action (create) and resource (map), and adds context about the current project. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource is distinct enough among siblings like create_project and create_event.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent without context on when to choose it over other creation tools.

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?

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action without detailing side effects such as directory handling, overwrite behavior, or whether the project is automatically loaded after creation. This is insufficient for a mutation 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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for its clear purpose.

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?

While the schema details parameters well, the description lacks contextual information about return values, prerequisites, or what happens after creation. The overall tool context is only partially complete, given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 5 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add extra parameter details, so it adds no additional value beyond the schema's 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 specifies the verb 'Create' and the resource 'a new RPG Maker MZ project', distinguishing it from sibling tools like load_project or create_map. It precisely identifies the tool's function.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or typical scenarios for project creation, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'using AI' but does not state whether the tool is read-only, creates persistent data, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The side effects and operational characteristics remain unclarified.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose without wasted words. It is concise and structured effectively, earning a top score.

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?

The tool has three simple parameters and no output schema, so the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about what the generated scenario looks like, how genre and length affect the result, or the form of the AI response. These gaps leave the agent with incomplete expectations for the tool's behavior.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (prompt, genre, length) with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that the prompt is a natural language description. Since the schema covers the meaning, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('generate'), a clear resource ('game scenario'), and the source ('natural language description using AI'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_map or create_event, which target more granular elements.

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 implies the tool is for turning natural language into a game scenario, giving a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the boundary versus siblings like create_map or apply_template.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return value looks like, or any side effects or limitations. The description merely restates the tool's basic function without offering behavioral 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple with only one parameter and no output schema, so the description does not need extensive detail. However, it does not describe what a 'best practice' response looks like or how the feature maps to returned content, leaving some ambiguity. Given the minimal complexity, this is a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter 'feature' with examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as acceptable values or relationship to the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema 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 states the tool retrieves best practices and tips for a specific feature, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_knowledge and search_knowledge by focusing on best practices, though it could be more explicit about what constitutes a 'feature'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_knowledge or get_knowledge. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage solely from the name.

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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the action. It does not mention return format, permissions, side effects, or scope limitations, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral 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?

The description is a single sentence with no redundant words, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 read tool, this description is minimally viable, but it lacks clarification on what 'complete knowledge' means, how it differs from sibling tools, and what the output looks like. It is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 parameter 'category' is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, and the description simply reiterates the category focus without adding format, constraints, or usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'get' and resource 'knowledge' with a qualifier 'for a specific category', clearly indicating a retrieval operation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_knowledge' by focusing on a category, but does not explicitly clarify what 'complete' entails.

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 'search_knowledge' or 'get_best_practices'. The description merely states the action without mentioning exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only says 'load' without describing side effects, error handling, required permissions, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a tool that may affect the state of the environment.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is simple, but without an output schema or annotations, the description fails to mention what happens after loading (e.g., return value, whether the project becomes the active context for other tools). This leaves the agent to infer important behavioral context.

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 schema already describes the only parameter, 'path', as 'Project directory path' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline score for high schema 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 uses a specific verb ('load') and clearly identifies the resource ('existing RPG Maker MZ project'). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'create_project' by emphasizing 'existing', which implies loading vs creating.

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 phrase 'existing project' implies that this tool is for loading previously created projects, not for creating new ones. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., that a project must be loaded before using other tools).

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search' and provides no information about read-only nature, rate limits, auth requirements, or response format. For a knowledge base search, it is implicitly non-destructive, but this is not explicitly stated, and no additional behavioral traits are disclosed.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and concise. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but it is somewhat sparse compared to what might be expected for a search tool. It earns a 4 because it is efficiently written but slightly under-specified in terms of content density.

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 tool's simplicity, the description is minimal but leaves out important context such as the existence of sibling tools for similar purposes (e.g., get_knowledge). Without an output schema or annotations, the description should at least clarify what kind of results are returned or how this search differs from other access methods. This absence makes it incomplete for an agent to confidently select this 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all parameters (query and categories), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline without compensating for any gaps.

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 tool's function: 'Search the RPG Maker MZ knowledge base' with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('RPG Maker MZ knowledge base'). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_knowledge' or 'get_best_practices', which may also involve retrieving knowledge base content, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving the agent without context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions. No mention of sibling tools or conditions for use, so it fails to offer usage guidance.

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