game_sky

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

No behavioral annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint) are provided, and the description only uses 'Create/configure' which hints at mutation but lacks detail on side effects, permissions, or whether it modifies existing sky or creates new. This is insufficient for agent decision-making.

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 front-loaded purpose. No wasted words, though it could be slightly expanded with usage context without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what happens after execution (e.g., returns nothing or updates current scene). It does not cover behavioral results, making it incomplete for a tool with six parameters.

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 100%, so each parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond the schema, earning a baseline score 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?

Description clearly states the tool creates/configures a Sky, with options for procedural or physical. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like game_environment or game_gi.

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?

Description implies usage for sky creation/configuration but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like game_environment, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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