create_sky

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create' without mentioning whether the tool overwrites existing files, fails on conflicts, requires specific permissions, or what the return value indicates. For a write operation, this is a significant lack of 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and it does not waste words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and no additional complex behavior that needs explanation.

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?

Given the simple schema and absence of annotations, the description is too thin. It lacks critical context about overwrite behavior, side effects, and when to use this tool vs. siblings. For a write tool with no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral and usage details to be considered complete.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the enum values are already listed). It does not compensate with additional context about path formatting or material specifics.

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 it creates a Sky .tres with procedural or panorama material, which is a specific resource and differentiates it from sibling tools like create_environment or write_resource. The verb 'Create' plus the resource type and material options make 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 usage is implied: use this when you need to create a Sky resource. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools (e.g., create_resource or write_resource), nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It stops short of naming alternatives, so it earns a 3 rather than a higher score.

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