scatter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a live modifier, that source items are hidden, and where they are kept for editing – valuable non-obvious behavior. However, it does not mention whether the scatter is non-destructive, how to reverse it, or any performance implications, leaving meaningful behavioral 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and then the live modifier behavior. Every clause earns its place with no padding or repetition.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential concept and key side effect (hidden source collection) but omits usage context and behavioral details like reversibility or interaction with existing geometry. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 89%, so the schema already documents most parameters thoroughly. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the core scattering behavior. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: it scatters items on a surface with Poisson spacing, random spin/size, and surface alignment. It also names the mechanism ('Roxy Scatter' modifier) and notes that source items are hidden into a collection. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like add_surface_detail or duplicate_pattern, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. An agent must infer the use case from the description alone, which is a notable gap given the many sibling creation/detail tools.

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