scatter_tiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: 'skipping occupied cells', 'deterministic given seed', optional 'focal point with falloff for a density gradient', and non-overwriting implied by skipping. It doesn't mention side effects like whether it clears existing tiles or error handling, but the main behavioral traits are well covered.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first the core mechanism, second the optional focal point, third the use case and determinism. It is front-loaded and highly concise with no filler.

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 description provides enough context for a map-decoration tool: what it does, when to use it, key behavioral rules, and determinism. It doesn't describe the return value, but there is no output schema. It could mention alternatives like fill_region for uniform fills, but the given use-case guidance is sufficient.

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 63%, and the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains density as 'fraction of cells', focal parameter's effect ('denser near a landmark'), and seed determinism. It also aligns 'skipping occupied cells' with avoidOccupied. This compensates for the missing descriptions of mapId and region.

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 ('Scatter') and resource ('clutter tile ids over a region'), with detailed scope including density and occupancy. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like fill_region or set_map_tiles, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use for flowers/bushes/rocks/tall grass instead of hand-placing lone tiles — fixes sparse/corner-clustered decoration.' This provides when-to-use context and an informal alternative, but it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternative tools.

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