Create raymarch scene

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which are consistent with a tool that creates a new container. The description adds that it 'exposes live CameraZ / Speed / StepCount / Intensity / ColorA / ColorB controls and previews the output TOP', elaborating on the behavior beyond the 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly defines the tool's purpose and its relationship to a sibling, while the second lists scenes and controls, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 creates a container with many parameters, the description covers the core functionality, scenes, and live controls. It does not detail the output or container structure, but since there is no output schema, this is acceptable. The sibling list is large, but the description effectively positions this tool among them.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter already well-documented. The description adds minimal additional meaning (e.g., '3D complement' context, but no new parameter details), so it does not significantly improve upon 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 clearly states the tool 'instantiates a self-contained GLSL TOP raymarcher (volumetric / signed-distance-field)', specifies it as the '3D complement to create_shader_lib', and lists three distinct scenes. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_shader_lib and other 3D tools.

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 mentions it is the '3D complement to create_shader_lib', providing some context on when to use this tool versus that sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to other related tools (e.g., create_3d_scene, create_glsl_shader) among the many siblings, limiting its guidance for selection.

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