map_create_checker

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating and potentially destructive operation. The description adds optional-color behavior and the UV-testing purpose, but does not clarify what is created or modified, such as material assignment or scene side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact, bilingual, and front-loaded with the core action. Both sentences earn their place by covering the operation and its primary use, with no filler or redundant detail.

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 simple tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description adequately states what the tool creates and why. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns or what it affects, leaving a moderate gap for an agent that needs to use the created map afterward.

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%, with color1 and color2 already described as integer arrays or hex strings. The description only repeats that colors are optional and adds no additional format, defaults, or interaction details beyond the schema.

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 action and resource: 'Create a Checker map' with 'two optional colours'. It also gives the intended use case, 'testing UVs', which distinguishes it from sibling map-creation tools like map_create_bitmap or map_create_gradient.

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 explicitly says '常用于测试 UV / Useful for testing UVs', giving the agent a clear scenario for choosing this tool. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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