create_scene_plan

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

The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the output is deterministic and auditable, and it clarifies that the tool produces a plan rather than directly modifying a scene. However, with no annotations, it still fails to disclose whether files are written, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to existing plan artifacts.

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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and core output characteristics. Every word adds relevant meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, side effects, expected return/output format, and when to use it among closely related scene-planning siblings.

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 needed to compensate, but it never mentions asset_id or output_directory. The property names are somewhat self-explanatory, yet the description adds no meaning about how they relate to the tilemap scene or Godot exports.

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 states a clear verb ('Create') and a specific resource: a deterministic, auditable TypeScript plan for a tilemap scene and its Godot exports. The tilemap and planning focus helps distinguish it from sibling composition/reporting tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or boundary conditions.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as plan_asset_scene, compose_asset_scene, or create_character_plan. An agent must infer the intended use case entirely from the tool name and context.

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