game_debug_draw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'draw' and does not disclose that debug draws are typically temporary overlays, how duration/persistence works, or that 'clear' removes previous draws. It is not misleading, but it under-discloses behavior.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and dimensionality. Every word earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is too thin. It does not explain the conditional groupings (from/to for lines, center+radius for spheres, center+size for boxes) or the 'clear' action. The schema documents individual parameters well, but an agent still has to infer multi-action semantics from parameter names.

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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful comment such as 'Line start', 'Box size', and 'Sphere/box center'. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond grouping line/sphere/box concepts, which the schema already exposes through the action parameter. The baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Draw'), resource ('debug lines, spheres, or boxes'), and scope ('in 3D'). This distinguishes it from 2D drawing tools like game_canvas_draw and from mesh/scene creation tools. The primary purpose is unambiguous.

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 word 'debug' implies diagnostic visualization and '3D' hints at the relevant sibling space, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no cleanup guidance via action='clear'. An agent must infer usage context from the name and schema rather than being told.

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