Luaコンポーネントアタッチ

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

With minimal annotations (only openWorldHint=false), the description carries the burden. It discloses that actual initialization/execution happens at play time, script path is assets-relative, and returns ok immediately. It could mention error handling but is sufficient.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers attachment behavior, timing, path constraints, and immediate response. The output schema presumably documents return values, so no additional info needed.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'name' uses exact match and is stable after Stop, which supplements the schema descriptions. It does not duplicate schema info.

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 action: 'Lua コンポーネントをエンティティにアタッチする' (Attach Lua component to entity). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like dx12_create_lua_component (creating a component) and dx12_read_lua_component (reading state).

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 explains when the component activates ('Play 時(OnStart/OnUpdate)') and that it's attached in the editor. It provides context for usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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