distribute_objects

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate the mutating nature. It adds useful context about the spacing parameter's semantics (uniform vs. fixed gap in meters) but does not disclose potential side effects such as modifying object origins or overwriting existing transforms. Given annotations cover the core safety profile, a score of 3 reflects that additional context is provided but not comprehensive.

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, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the main action and then detail the two spacing modes. Every sentence adds meaningful information without repetition or fluff. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 complexity (3 parameters, destructive hint, no schema description coverage), the description explains the essential behavior and the critical spacing logic. It does not mention the return value or explicitly warn about side effects, but the annotations cover the destructive nature. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's core functionality and use 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 compensate. It effectively explains the key parameter 'spacing' with its two states and units (meters), and mentions 'axis' as the distribution line. However, 'names' is left implicit (obviously the objects to distribute). While it doesn't fully document all parameters, it covers the most nuanced one, earning a score above 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 states the tool's function: distributing objects along an axis. It specifies two distinct modes (uniform spacing preserving extremes vs. fixed gap in meters), which distinguishes it from siblings like align_objects or array_object by its precise behavior. The verb 'reparte' is specific and the resource ('objetos sobre un eje') is clear.

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 when to use the tool (when distributing objects along an axis with either uniform or fixed spacing) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention when not to use it or how it compares to align_objects or array_object. Thus, usage guidance is only implied, not explicitly detailed.

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