スフィア生成(整形込み)

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

The description states it 'generates' a sphere and returns entityId, name, sceneGeneration, implying creation of a new entity. However, with no annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description could further clarify side effects (e.g., entity creation is a mutation). It is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 concise: one sentence plus a brief return value note. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could slightly expand on optionality without sacrificing conciseness.

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 (7 parameters, all optional) and no annotation coverage, the description is complete enough for a simple spawn tool. The output schema exists (not shown) but the description mentions the return values. It does not elaborate on defaults or constraints, but the schema covers those.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond listing parameter names; it does not explain parameter relationships or provide syntax details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool spawns a sphere in one call and lists the parameters it can specify. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dx12_spawn_box, dx12_spawn_coin, etc., by focusing on sphere generation.

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 usage for creating spheres but does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer from the name and parameter list.

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