创建基于时间的路径动画（实体沿路径运动）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| loop | No | ||
| model | No | 3D模型URL或预设名称（cesium_man, cesium_air, ground_vehicle, cesium_drone） | |
| entityId | Yes | 动画实体ID | |
| pathColor | No | YELLOW | |
| pathWidth | No | ||
| waypoints | Yes | ||
| modelScale | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds the animation purpose but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether an existing entity must be referenced, how the animation integrates with the scene clock, or side effects on the entity. More context would be valuable.
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, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the information it provides.
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 tool's complexity (7 parameters), the lack of an output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not mention prerequisites (like an existing entity), what the tool returns, or how to control or update the created animation. Users would need to rely on external knowledge to use it correctly.
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 low (29%), with only entityId, model, and waypoint time having descriptions. The tool description does not compensate by explaining parameters like waypoints, loop, pathColor, or modelScale. It only vaguely hints at time-based path behavior, leaving users to infer parameter semantics.
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 the tool creates a time-based path animation with entity movement along a path. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical clarifies the behavior, distinguishing it from static model placement siblings like addModel.
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?
Usage context is implied: the tool is for creating path animations. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings like controlAnimation, updateAnimationPath, or playTrajectory, nor any exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools share conceptual boundaries (e.g., addMarker vs addBillboard vs addLabel, addPolyline vs addCorridor vs addWall, flyTo vs setView), though descriptions clarify most cases. The overlap is notable given the large tool count.
All tools use lowerCamelCase with a consistent verb-first pattern (add*, load*, set*, remove*, update*). Some generic verbs like control and update are reused, but the naming is predictable and readable.
43 tools is well beyond the recommended range. Many add* functions for different primitive types could be consolidated into one entity-creation tool, reducing bloat and cognitive load without sacrificing capability.
The tool set offers strong coverage across entities, layers, camera controls, and animations. Minor gaps include lack of entity information retrieval and direct geometry re-editing, but core workflows are well supported.