create_geosphere

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint true, so the agent knows this tool modifies the scene. The description adds context about the result (uniformity, suitability) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as side effects or prerequisites. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate—it adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences (bilingual) that front-load the core purpose and differentiation. There is zero waste; every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and when to use it.

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?

For a creation tool with 23 optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers the essential context: what it creates, its advantage, and its use case. It does not explain return values, but creation tools typically do not require that, and the schema handles parameters. The description is complete for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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%, meaning every parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 the tool creates a geosphere with more uniform distribution than a standard Sphere, and specifies its intended use for planets and collision spheres. It distinguishes itself from the sibling create_sphere by highlighting the uniformity advantage, making the purpose 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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when a more uniform sphere is needed (planets, collision). It implies the alternative (Sphere) without naming it directly, but the sibling create_sphere is obvious. It gives a condition for use but does not explicitly state when not to use it, so it's slightly below a perfect score.

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