Sb3 Vm Seed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that an integer seed makes operator_random deterministic and that null restores Math.random, which is valuable. However, it does not explain persistence, scope across VM runs, or side effects, and the appended '(proxied)' is ambiguous.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core behavior is stated first, and the null restoration behavior is secondary. The parenthetical '(proxied)' is minor but unexplained, slightly detracting from an otherwise tight structure.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and a simple effect, the description adequately covers the key behavior and the null case. Return values are not discussed, but an output schema exists so that is acceptable. It is slightly thin on usage context but sufficient for correct invocation.

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 explains that the seed parameter accepts an integer for deterministic behavior and null to restore Math.random, adding meaningful semantic context beyond the schema's type union. This is strong compensation for the coverage gap.

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 that the tool sets a deterministic PRNG seed for operator_random and that null restores Math.random. It names a specific mechanism (operator_random), which helps distinguish it from sibling VM tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'sets' and does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other sb3_vm_* tools or when not to use it. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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