align_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions the fan pattern but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is destructive (overwrites values), requires authentication, or has side effects. The lack of detail on what happens to existing values is a gap.

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 sentence with 12 words, front-loading the verb and resource. It is concise but may sacrifice clarity for brevity. Every word contributes, but jargon ('fan first-to-last') might be opaque to some agents.

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 has one optional parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description should explain the parameter's effect and what the output contains. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool correctly. The description is incomplete for a parameterized tool.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'target' with no description, and the tool description does not explain its purpose. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no semantic value to the parameter. The agent cannot infer what 'target' refers to (e.g., target value, attribute, or fixture).

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 aligns attribute values across selected fixtures with a fan first-to-last pattern. It uses a specific verb and resource, helping distinguish it from sibling tools like set_fixture_attribute or apply_effect. However, the term 'align' could be more explicit about the nature of the alignment (e.g., gradient or spread).

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 implies usage for fan alignment across fixtures but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_fixture_attribute for uniform values or apply_effect for effects. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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