Create Gaussian Splat scene

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds significant behavioral context: it creates components, loads assets, binds cameras, exposes controls, and warns about OOM crashes for high resolutions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main action and then lists requirements and returns. It is well-structured and each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by breaking into separate sections.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, inputs, requirements, warnings, and integration with other tools (camera rigs). It mentions return values and provides a preview image reference, making it complete for an AI agent to understand and use the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of each parameter in context (e.g., camera binding, VRAM warnings for output_res, bypassing standard candidate walk for tox_path).

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 verb (creates a Gaussian splat scene) and the specific resources involved (drops TDGS .tox into baseCOMP, loads .ply/.splat asset, optionally binds camera, exposes renderTOP). It distinguishes from sibling creation tools by specifying the unique domain of Gaussian splat scenes.

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 explicit requirements (TDGS installed, TD build, CUDA GPU, Windows) and VRAM warnings for different resolutions. It gives clear context on when to use (for Gaussian splat scenes) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools.

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