Storm Input Path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds only an opaque chain of internal symbols without explaining what the trace does, what data it returns, or any behavior beyond what the annotations state, so it adds little useful context.

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 very short, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than useful conciseness. The single symbol chain does not front-load a clear purpose, and the agent cannot tell what the tool is for from this fragment.

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?

For a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions, the definition is severely incomplete. Although an output schema exists and need not be explained, the description still omits purpose, usage, and parameter semantics, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (build, depth, limit). The agent gets no semantic meaning for these parameters beyond their names and types, so the description fails to compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 gives a cryptic sequence of symbols ("Pad poll -> ccPlayerPad -> CtrlInputPad -> vfunc gates -> ChangeAction") rather than a clear verb and resource for the tool. It hints at an input-processing pipeline but never states what the tool actually does or returns, leaving the agent to infer its function from the name and title.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tools (such as storm_state_surface, storm_frame_tick, or storm_scene_dispatch) are alternatives. The description provides zero usage context.

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