Create kaleidoscope

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive behavior; the description adds value by detailing what the tool creates (baseCOMP with source, GLSL pass, Null output), optional input behavior, and the return summary. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, well-structured paragraph of two sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides necessary details without unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place, achieving high 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?

For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: creation process, optional input, return information (summary + JSON with paths, errors, warnings, preview). It is mostly complete but could be improved by briefly describing the JSON structure more explicitly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats some parameter info (Segments, Rotation, Zoom, Center) but does not significantly elaborate beyond the schema's own descriptions. It adds minor context like '6 is the classic look' but overall relies heavily on the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Wrap a source') and identifies the resource (kaleidoscope/radial-mirror symmetry effect), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_visual_system or create_feedback_network. It also notes it's a 'signature VJ look', further clarifying its unique niche.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (to wrap a source in a kaleidoscope effect) and provides an alternative (omitting input to generate noise). However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or compare to siblings, missing the opportunity to guide the agent away from similar tools.

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