ボックス生成(整形込み)

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

Description discloses that the tool internally executes multiple steps (create_entity→set_transform→set_pbr→set_color) and returns {entityId, name, sceneGeneration}. This adds significant value beyond the minimal annotations (only title and openWorldHint=false), providing full behavioral insight.

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?

Description is extremely concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second lists parameters, third summarizes internal execution and return. 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 (7 parameters, internal steps), the description explains internal steps and return value. Output schema exists, so return is documented elsewhere. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or prerequisite conditions (e.g., scene must be loaded), but overall adequate.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds a concrete usage example for the 'scale' parameter ('[4,0.5,4] for scaffolding'), which provides practical guidance beyond the 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?

Description clearly states it generates a box in one call and specifies it's optimal for scaffolding/walls/floors. The verb '生成' (generate) and resource 'ボックス' (box) are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like dx12_spawn_sphere by focusing on cubes with integrated PBR settings.

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?

Description provides clear usage context ('optimal for scaffolding/walls/floors') but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives like dx12_spawn_sphere. The context is helpful but lacks exclusions.

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