x3d_scene_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a complete, valid X3D XML document with boilerplate already set up, and explains the effect of each parameter on the output. It doesn't mention error handling or side effects, but the non-destructive template generation nature is clear. This is strong transparency for a generation tool.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the core purpose and return value, followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. It's appropriately sized for a tool with four parameters.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers what it does, what it returns, and how to use the parameters. An output schema exists, so the return format is further specified. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently without ambiguity.

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 alone explains the parameters. It provides meaningful semantics for 'profile' including common choices (Interchange, Interactive, Immersive, Full) with brief descriptions, and clarifies 'title', 'include_viewpoint', and 'include_light' with their roles. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a minimal valid X3D scene template' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like x3d_generate_node and x3d_add_node by focusing on a full-scene template rather than a single node or modification.

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 context: 'Use this as a starting point and modify the scene content as needed.' It also explains profile choices and their use cases, helping the agent select the right profile. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like x3d_generate_node, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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