Create stipple point cloud

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses behavioral specifics: output structure ('Outputs a Render TOP through a Geometry COMP in points render mode'), luminance-driven density ('Brighter regions yield denser clusters'), and mode-specific behaviors (random_jitter adds noisePOP for organic scatter). This provides meaningful context not present in the annotations, though it doesn't discuss potential side effects or return values.

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 sentences, each adding value: core purpose, density behavior, three modes, output type, and sibling differentiation. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids redundant fluff.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and annotations providing only broad hints, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, output, and place among siblings. It doesn't explicitly state the return value, but the creation context and parent_path/name parameters make it inferable. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 11 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning and defaults. The description adds conceptual context (e.g., color modes, density weighting) but does not add per-parameter syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Density-weighted particle scatter rendered as discrete points — a stippled / halftone-engraving point cloud whose dot distribution follows the luminance of a source TOP.' It also names three visual modes and the output via Render TOP / Geometry COMP. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing create_pop_geometry, create_dither, and create_halftone.

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 clear alternatives by identifying sibling tools and their differences: 'Sibling to create_pop_geometry (procedural SOP geo) and the rasterised create_dither / create_halftone tools (which stay in TOP space).' This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate: when a point cloud in geometry space with density-based stippling is needed, versus procedural SOP geometry or rasterized TOP effects.

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