scatter_objects

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=true annotations, it discloses random rotation/scale behavior, seed-based reproducibility, and a performance caveat. It does not explicitly state whether original prototype objects are removed or kept, but 'copies' implies duplication and no annotation contradiction is present.

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, front-loads the core operation and scope, then adds use cases and a performance warning. Both language versions are equally concise and every sentence earns its place.

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 an 11-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the main intent, use cases, and a performance consideration. It lacks an explicit statement of side effects on the source objects, but the schema and the copy wording cover the essential calling conventions.

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% and each parameter already has a bilingual description. The prose adds general context (seed reproducibility, random transforms) but does not add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific action (scatter copies of objects) and a clear resource/scope (inside a box or over a surface), plus typical use cases (grass, rubble, crowds). It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling duplication tools like clone_objects or array_objects, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives clear application context ('grass, rubble, crowds' / '大量重复物') and even warns to batch large counts, which helps an agent decide when it is appropriate. It does not state when to use a sibling instead, such as clone_objects or array_objects for regular layouts.

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