create_shader

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the function without mentioning side effects (e.g., file creation, overwrite behavior), return values, or whether it opens the shader in the editor. The description is insufficiently transparent.

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 short sentence that effectively restates the tool name. It lacks details about parameters or behavior, making it too minimal for a tool with three parameters. Not concise in a meaningful way.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about the creation process, such as file location implications or default behaviors. It is incomplete and leaves important 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?

Schema coverage is 100%; all three parameters (path, type, content) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 'Create a new Shader resource' clearly states the action (create) and the resource type (Shader). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_script, create_animation, etc., which target different resource types.

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 create_resource (generic resource creation) or edit_shader (modifying an existing shader). No exclusions or context for appropriate usage.

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