tao_den

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the SUN direction behavior but says nothing about whether the call mutates the scene, whether it is reversible, what the defaults produce, what units goc_do/cong_suat use, or what the tool returns.

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?

Only two short sentences, front-loaded with the creation verb and the valid type values, with no filler. The second clause is somewhat telegraphic and the line break breaks flow, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations, no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot determine units, coordinate conventions, default effects, or how to distinguish this tool from the environment-lighting sibling.

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% for 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially covers two: 'kieu' (SUN, POINT, SPOT, AREA) and 'goc_do' for SUN, but leaves 'ten', 'vi_tri' and 'cong_suat' completely unexplained, including expected array formats and units.

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+resource ('tao nguon sang' = create a light source) and enumerates the supported light kinds, so the agent knows exactly what gets created. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the lighting-related sibling 'anh_sang_moi_truong' (environment lighting), which an agent must otherwise infer.

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 note that SUN is used as sunlight and that goc_do governs its direction gives implied usage for one mode, which helps the agent pick the right kind. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisites, and no routing to or away from sibling tools such as anh_sang_moi_truong or tao_camera.

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