game_parallax

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Create/configure' implies mutation of the scene, but the description does not explain what happens to existing nodes, whether configure mutates an existing background or replaces it, or how add_layer relates to the background. The action enum in the schema hints at these behaviors, but the description itself adds little beyond the mutation signal.

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 with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is easy to scan and does not repeat schema content. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices useful context about action modes and exactly what 'layers' means.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must carry substantial context, but it only provides a high-level summary. Seven parameters, three distinct actions, and nested objects need more guidance about required inputs, orchestration, and side effects. The schema documents parameter names but not when or how to use them together.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, including action values, nodePath, mirroring, motionScale, and motionOffset. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Create/configure ParallaxBackground and layers'), clearly indicating this tool handles Godot parallax backgrounds. It does not restate the tool name, and the parallax focus distinguishes it from the many sibling scene tools. It could be clearer that 'layers' refers to ParallaxLayer nodes and which action modes exist.

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 intended use case is implied by the verb/resource pair: use this when creating or configuring a parallax background. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over other scene-creation tools, nor when to use create_background vs add_layer vs configure. The description leaves the decision largely to the agent's inference from the action enum.

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