camera_shake_trigger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core overlap-triggered behavior and the Python/C++ pattern, but omits potential side effects, prerequisites like a compiled C++ class, or behavior outside PIE.

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 concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. The second sentence about Python/C++ pattern adds architectural context but is not strictly essential, making it efficient but slightly padded.

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?

This 5-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema requires more context. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., compiled C++ class), what the tool returns, or how parameters like location and box_extent affect spawning. This is a significant gap.

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 60%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters like 'name' and 'location'. It does not mention any parameters, leaving the agent without additional semantic insight beyond the schema's partial descriptions.

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 spawns a C++ ShakeTriggerActor that plays camera shake on player overlap during PIE. The verb 'Spawn' and specific resource distinguish it from sibling camera shake tools like camera_shake_play or camera_shake_spawn.

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 implies the usage context (trigger box overlap during PIE) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over camera_shake_play or camera_shake_spawn, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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