game_raycast

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

Annotations only include a title, so the description must carry full burden. It only states the action and return type, but fails to disclose whether it returns first hit only, all hits, coordinate system, or any side effects. Essential behavioral traits are missing.

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, short sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly expanded for better context without becoming verbose.

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 nested objects and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the return structure, whether it supports 2D or 3D, or how collision results are formatted. Given the complexity of raycasting, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already documents 'from', 'to', and 'collisionMask' with basic descriptions. No value increment.

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 'Cast a ray and return collision results' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool's core function. It distinguishes itself from siblings as the only raycast tool among many game_* utilities.

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 game_physics_2d or game_physics_3d. No explicit contexts, exclusions, or comparisons are given.

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