preview_shot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool does not apply the shot and that navmesh paths are deterministic, but it does not clarify whether temporary state is created, what the compiled output represents, or whether a valid scene snapshot is a prerequisite.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and key constraints, with no filler, repetition, or vague qualifiers. It conveys the core purpose and the most important behavioral qualifier extremely efficiently.

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?

Despite a very complex schema with two large required structs and no annotations, the description is only one sentence. The output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, but the description omits invocation context, prerequisites, and the distinction from validation/staging tools, making it insufficient for reliable tool selection in a complex workflow.

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 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the two required top-level parameters, shot_spec and scene_snapshot, or how they interact. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compile') and resource ('shot'), and adds scope via 'including deterministic navmesh paths' and 'without applying it,' which distinguishes it from apply/stage tools. It is clear enough for a preview action, though 'compile' is somewhat domain-specific and does not explicitly contrast with validate_shot_spec.

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 phrase 'without applying it' implies this is for previewing before an apply/stage action, giving some usage context. However, it never names alternatives like apply_scene_patch, stage_scene_patch, or validate_shot_spec, nor states when to prefer this tool over them.

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