rupa_tekstur

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it computes pixels per meter, catches three specific waste patterns, validates normal maps under two conditions, and warns about misinterpreting factors. This goes far beyond what annotations or schemas provide.

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 longer than average but every paragraph earns its place: purpose, thresholds, hidden-waste categories, normal-map pitfalls, and factor interpretation. It is front-loaded with the core metric and organized by topic, though some sentences could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

With no output schema and only three simple parameters, the description supplies all essential context an agent needs: what to pass, what it computes, how to interpret results, and which texture pathologies it detects. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 parameters are already well-documented individually. The description reinforces the meaning of piksel_per_meter with metric thresholdsanding, but it does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with a specific verb—'Periksa TEKSTUR sebuah GLB'—and names the exact question it answers: whether texture resolution is sufficient or too large. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like rupa_tekstur_buat by framing itself as an analysis tool, not a creation tool.

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 clearly explains when this tool is useful—checking texel density and hidden texture waste—and provides concrete thresholds for interpreting results. It implies no other tool does this ('tidak ada alat yang mengalikannya'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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