rock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses determinism ('Same seed, same rock'), that the mesh is closed, that it passes check_mesh, how facets change shading, and that the origin sits at the bottom centre so the rock stands on the ground. It omits cost/performance notes (e.g. triangle budget limits) and 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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then gives each parameter its own tight line, then closes with usage advice. Every sentence carries information; no filler.

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 an 8-parameter generator with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete on inputs and behaviour. It stops short of describing the return value or any post-conditions beyond 'passes check_mesh', which is the one remaining gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: radius is defined as half-width with the 2x rule, roughness and flatness are given ranges plus behavioural meaning (0.5 = flat boulder), detail is mapped to actual triangle counts, facets explains flat vs smooth shading, at defines origin placement, and seed implies determinism. Only 'name' is left implicit, which is self-evident.

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 and artifact ('Make a closed rock mesh') plus the exact construction method ('icosphere roughened by noise and squashed'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_primitive, blob, noise_displace and terrain.

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?

Gives concrete selection guidance ('For a low-poly game use detail 1 or 2 with facets=true') and workflow advice ('Vary seed, radius and flatness to make a set of different stones'). It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use this one, so it falls short of a 5.

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