Create step repeat (brick/grid tiling)

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

The description thoroughly explains behavioral aspects beyond the annotations: it creates a self-contained container, uses a GLSL shader, defaults to a noise source when no source is provided, outputs a nullTOP, and returns a summary with JSON and preview. This adds significant value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true, destructiveHint: false) without contradiction.

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 well-structured and informative, with the main purpose stated first followed by key details. It is concise (3-4 sentences) but contains relevant information about the internal mechanism, default behavior, and return value. Slightly verbose in places ('all computed per-cell in a single GLSL TOP shader'), but overall efficient.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no required, no output schema), the description provides complete context: what the tool does, how it works (GLSL, stock TOPs), default behavior, output type (nullTOP), and return value (summary+JSON+preview). This enables an agent to fully understand the tool's purpose and outcome without 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?

All 9 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds only high-level context (e.g., 'per-cell gap') but does not introduce new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: tiling a source TOP into a brick/grid pattern with customizable parameters. It uses specific verbs ('Tile') and identifies the resource (source TOP). The tool is distinct from siblings as it focuses on step-repeat tiling, which is a unique operation among the many 'create_*' 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (when a tiled grid with jitter and brick offset is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It gives enough information for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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