camera_shake_spawn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the PIE-only limitation and the radius-based behavior, which is useful context. However, it omits side effects, persistence of the spawned actor, potential idempotency issues, or what the agent can expect as a result, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no wasted words. Every phrase adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters (including a nested location object), no output schema, and no annotations. The description lacks crucial operational details such as how to specify location, what shake_class should contain, whether parameters are optional, and what the tool returns. It is too incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke without further investigation.

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 description coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate. It only refers to 'inner/outer radius', which partially explains those parameters, but provides no added meaning for 'name', 'location', or 'shake_class'. The schema's own descriptions for these fields are minimal, and the description adds little beyond reinforcing the radius concept.

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 action: 'Spawn a CameraShakeSourceActor in the level.' It specifies the resource (CameraShakeSourceActor) and distinguishes from sibling tools like camera_shake_play and camera_shake_trigger by mentioning the emission within radii during PIE.

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 ('during PIE') and the tool's behavior (emits shake within inner/outer radius), indicating when it is relevant. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, such as using camera_shake_play for direct playback, so it falls short of a 5.

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