fgui_create_button

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the state image order, a useful behavioral detail, but omits key aspects such as whether the tool modifies the active document, requires an open package, or has side effects like opening the created button. Minimal transparency for a creation tool.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose and a key detail. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately 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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex (16 parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations). The one-sentence description is far from complete—it does not explain typical usage scenarios, parameter interactions, or potential pitfalls. It is minimally viable but with significant gaps for an agent to invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the 16 parameters. While some parameter names are self-explanatory, many (e.g., as_list_item, create_relations, open_after_create) are ambiguous without further context. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 creates a standard FairyGUI Button component with a specific verb-resource pair. The mention of state image order also distinguishes it from generic component creation or other sibling tools like fgui_create_component.

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 when to use this tool (to create a standard button), but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or references to sibling tools are provided, so guidance is limited to what is already obvious from the name and description.

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