tex_pack

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description discloses key behaviors: inverting smoothness to roughness, supporting two normal_y conventions, neutrally filling missing maps, and reporting warnings. It does not explicitly mention file writing or overwrite behavior, but the transformative details are substantial. It stops short of full transparency regarding filesystem side effects.

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 a single dense sentence with many meaningful details, but it is somewhat run-on. It is not overly long and every phrase adds value, though breaking it into structured points would improve readability. It earns a 4 for efficiency without being bloated.

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 covers the core behavior: input maps, output format, transformations, normal_y options, and missing-map handling with warnings. There is no output schema, so it partially explains what the tool produces. It does not mention return values or file structure, but for a packing tool, the operational context is mostly 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'normal_y' with its directx/opengl options, but does not describe 'maps_dir', 'out_dir', or 'name'. The description implies the output format and missing-map handling, but fails to clarify three of the four parameters.

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 function: packing manually created Materialize single maps into Enfusion BCR/NMO format, with specific transformation details. The verb 'packen' and the resource 'Einzelmaps' make the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that generate or inspect textures.

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 usage context: it is an ingest bridge for maps manually created in Materialize with specific suffixes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to infer when this tool applies. No explicit 'when not to use' is given, hence not a 5.

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