Create raymarch scene

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

Annotations convey non-readonly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that it creates a self-contained container, exposes live controls, and previews the output TOP – behavioral details not present in the annotations.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences cover the purpose, scene options, and key features. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 rich input schema and absence of an output schema, the description offers a sufficient overview of behavior. It could mention naming or parent_path specifics, but those are already embedded in the schema, so this is adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only merely echoes the exposed control names without adding new depth beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb ('Instantiate') and names the resource ('self-contained GLSL TOP raymarcher'), clearly stating what the tool does. It also explicitly differentiates from a sibling ('3D complement to create_shader_lib') and lists the concrete scene options.

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 clear usage context by positioning the tool as the 3D counterpart to create_shader_lib, implying when it should be used. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or guidance on when to choose alternatives like create_raytk_scene or create_sdf_field.

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