frustum_culling_occlusion_tester

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Tests' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description does not clarify side effects, output format, error behavior, or the payment settlement flow tied to paymentSignature. The cost mention is a helpful hint but not a behavioral contract.

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?

One concise sentence conveys the core purpose, and a parenthetical adds the cost without clutter. Every element earns its place, and the primary action is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is operationally incomplete. It does not describe what the tool returns, how to format the payload, or how the payment signature is used beyond its parameter name. An agent would likely need additional probing to invoke this tool correctly.

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 already describes both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful domain context that the payload should contain camera frustum and bounding volume data, but it stops short of specifying the exact JSON structure or expected fields, leaving room for ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb ('Tests'), a clear resource ('camera view frustum planes against 3D bounding spheres and OBB'), and the intended use case ('spatial level-of-detail (LOD) streaming'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like calculate_bounding_box_3d or convert_bounding_box_format, which handle bounding volumes differently.

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 supplies a clear context ('for spatial level-of-detail (LOD) streaming') that tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full when/when-not guidance.

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