plate_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the output contains and warns that the stack is not the last step, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior such as the missing PLATE_LIBRARY caveat.

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?

Three short sentences deliver content definition, engine mapping, and a workflow caution with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

The description conveys what the output contains and how to choose an engine, which is adequate given the schema covers parameter details. It does not explain how the tool relates to siblings or what the domain parameter affects in the stack, but the schema's domain description fills that gap.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for the engine enum by explaining what each value is for. The domain parameter is not mentioned in the description, yet the schema already covers it thoroughly.

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 identifies a specific resource, 'the finishing stack for an engine,' and details its ordered contents: script tags, code, reasons, and gotchas. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets,' and does not differentiate from sibling tools, so it misses the top score.

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 provides clear selection context by mapping engine values to use cases: 'three-r128' for a 3D scene, 'web' for a landing page, 'video' for motion. It also gives a workflow directive, 'build it in before judging anything,' but does not state when not to use the tool or name alternatives among the plate_* siblings.

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