ai_align_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool '제안합니다' (suggests), implying it's advisory rather than directly modifying objects, but doesn't clarify whether suggestions are displayed, returned as data, or require confirmation. It also doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or what happens with the 'auto' mode. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 Korean sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and clear schema documentation. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral information given the lack of annotations.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that suggests alignment methods. It doesn't explain what form the suggestions take, how they're presented to users, or what happens after suggestions are made. With 2 parameters and behavioral uncertainty, the description should provide more context about the tool's operation and results.

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 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema (objectIds with minItems constraint, mode with enum values and default). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides - it mentions '선택한 객체들' (selected objects) and '정렬 방법' (alignment methods) which map to parameters but don't provide additional context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool '제안합니다' (suggests) alignment methods for selected objects, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'object_move' or 'object_order' that might also affect object positioning. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. With many sibling tools related to object manipulation (object_move, object_order, object_rotate, etc.), there's no indication whether this is for alignment suggestions versus actual transformations, or what context triggers its use. Only basic parameter requirements are implied.

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