scene-pack-objects-in-container

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the container and objects are positioned for minimal container size, but omits details about the container type (e.g., new parent object, collider shape), side effects (e.g., reparenting, possible destruction of existing groups), or whether the operation is reversible. Additional behavioral context is needed.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the action and outcome. Every word adds value, no redundant phrasing. Perfectly sized for quick comprehension.

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 description covers the basic purpose but lacks necessary context for a complex scene manipulation tool. It does not explain what the container is (e.g., new parent object, collider), how objects are reorganized, or the impact on the scene hierarchy. With no output schema and no annotations, more detail is needed for complete agent understanding.

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 both parameters described in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema—only 'the given objects' and 'container is minimal'. It does not explain the relationship between objectIds and the resulting container or any constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Create a container to group' and the resource 'the given objects', with the outcome 'the container and objects are positioned so the container size is minimal.' It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scene-move-game-objects-to-parent' (which moves without packing) and 'scene-add-game-objects' (which adds without grouping).

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 the tool is for grouping objects into a minimal container, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. No guidance on when not to use (e.g., if objects should stay independent) or comparison to similar sibling tools. The context of minimal packing suggests specific use cases, but lacking explicit direction.

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