spawn_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not state side effects, whether spawned entities persist, what 'limited implementation' actually limits, or any prerequisites or consequences. The phrase hints at limitations but provides no concrete detail.

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 and is front-loaded with the core action. However, 'limited implementation' is vague and could be replaced with specific constraints without increasing length much.

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?

This is a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should clarify side effects, return value, and constraints. It only provides a bare one-liner, leaving an agent uncertain about what happens after spawning and what 'limited' means in practice.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented by the schema. The description adds little beyond restating that an entity is placed at a position; it does not enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the action (spawn), the resource (entity), and the location (specific position). The phrase 'limited implementation' adds a caveat but does not obscure the core purpose, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_code, run_test_script, or other entity manipulation tools. The vague 'limited implementation' hint is not sufficient to help an agent decide when this is the right choice.

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