generate_indoor_scene

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 mentions the tool generates scenes 'using Infinigen' but doesn't describe what the tool actually does (e.g., creates files, returns paths, runtime behavior, permissions needed, or potential side effects). For a tool with no annotations and complex generation tasks, this is a significant 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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary details. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 complexity of scene generation (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, error conditions, or dependencies. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond basic 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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., how 'seed' affects generation, what 'configs' files contain, or implications of 'use_gpu'). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context.

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 purpose: 'Generate a photorealistic indoor scene with furniture and decorations using Infinigen.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('indoor scene'), and technology ('Infinigen'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'generate_nature_scene' beyond the 'indoor' vs 'nature' distinction in their names.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tools 'check_infinigen' or 'generate_nature_scene', nor does it explain prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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