Create step repeat (brick/grid tiling)

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

The description discloses the output type (nullTOP), the return format (summary + JSON with node paths, live controls, warnings, inline preview), the implementation (single GLSL TOP shader, stock TOPs only), and the fallback to a built-in synthetic Noise TOP. This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by explaining what gets created and what to expect, without contradicting them.

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 four concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first states the core function, the second covers the default source fallback, and the last two describe the output and return value. No filler or redundancy.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and a tool that creates a network, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, constraints, default behavior, and output format. However, it does not detail the JSON structure or the nature of potential warnings, leaving a minor gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 each of the 9 parameters already having a robust description. The tool description restates some parameter concepts (gap, jitter, rows/cols, brick offset) in prose but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema. Thus the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Tile') and identifies the resource ('source TOP'), the pattern ('rows×cols brick/grid'), and key features (gap, jitter, brick offset). This clearly distinguishes it from generic create_* tools like create_td_node or create_replicator.

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 (tiling a TOP) and gives constraints such as 'stock TOPs only' and the default Noise TOP fallback, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools are mentioned.

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