gi_manage

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects, preconditions, and return behavior. It only gives terse one-line summaries like 'Create a Decal node' and 'Inspect properties', without mentioning requirements (e.g., an active scene), destructive potential, error handling, or what the output schema contains. This is insufficient for a mutation-heavy 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 well-structured with a clear top-level purpose, bulleted operations, and a concise canonical call shape note. Each operation is one line plus a brief summary, avoiding fluff. The front-loaded purpose and operation list make it easy to scan. It earns high marks for efficiency, though the parameter lists add bulk.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (six ops, many parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not described), the description is not complete. It lacks return value details, error handling, preconditions, and example calls. While it covers the basic purpose of each op, an agent would need to inspect the output schema or experiment to understand behavior fully.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters in the op signatures and gives partial explanations (e.g., create_decal's 'optional albedo texture and dimensions' hints at texture_albedo and size). However, many parameters like subdivide, update_mode, and bounces are not explained, and configure_decal's long parameter list lacks individual descriptions. The op-level summaries add some value but are not exhaustive.

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's domain ('Global Illumination, Decal Projections, and Lighting Probes Management') and enumerates each operation with a specific verb+resource pair (e.g., 'create_decal', 'configure_decal'). This distinguishes it from the many sibling *manage tools, which target different subsystems.

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 lists operations but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. While the domain is self-evident, there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tool might be more appropriate for related tasks (e.g., light_manage for general lights). Usage is implied by the operation names but not explicitly scoped.

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