Get a detailed description of any Capsule asset by loading it in an isolated temporary document, so you can inspect its properties without altering your current Cinema 4D scene.
Describe a Capsule asset using an isolated temporary document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_id | Yes | ||
| asset_version | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Using an isolated temporary document' hints that the operation is non-persistent and isolated from the active scene, which is useful. However, it does not explain side effects, error behavior, or requirements, so the disclosure is incomplete.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though its brevity sacrifices explanatory detail.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values may be covered elsewhere, but the description lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and sufficient behavioral detail. For a two-parameter tool with no annotations, an agent needs more context to invoke 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 0% and the description provides no meaning for asset_id or asset_version beyond their names. The optional asset_version parameter is especially unexplained; an agent would not know what versions are valid or how the parameter affects the describe operation.
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 ('Describe') and resource ('Capsule asset') and adds a distinguishing mechanism ('using an isolated temporary document'). It is clear enough about the tool's action, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like inspect_capsule_graph or describe_scene_node_asset.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_capsule_assets or inspect_capsule_instances. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.