カスタムシェーダー作成

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

The description details behavioral traits beyond annotations: it writes the file, immediately compiles, returns compilation results even on failure (file remains), fixed entry points, and RootSignature constraints. Annotations only provide openWorldHint=false, so the description fully compensates.

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 somewhat long but well-structured with clear sections on purpose, limitations, entry points, return value, and workflow. Every sentence is informative, though slightly verbose; could be more concise without losing content.

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 complexity of shader creation with compilation, the description covers all necessary aspects: file location, compilation process, error handling, entry point constraints, RootSignature requirements, return value structure, and relation to sibling tools. Annotations are minimal and output schema exists, but the description provides complete guidance.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds significant value: for 'name', it clarifies no extension or path separators and gives an example; for 'code', it advises reading existing templates with dx12_read_shader and notes that the code must include VSMain/PSMain.

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 'Create/overwrite a custom shader (.hlsl) in assets/shaders/' with a specific purpose for MeshRenderer::shaderPath assignment. It distinguishes from siblings like dx12_read_shader (read) and dx12_set_mesh_shader (assign).

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: for writing custom shaders, with a workflow that involves iterative fixing using dx12_create_shader and assignment via dx12_set_mesh_shader. It also mentions reading existing templates with dx12_read_shader.

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