Batch-render all bundled examples to OBJ and PNG in a target directory to build visual galleries or detect rendering regressions.
Batch-render every bundled example to OBJ (+ PNG) in a directory.
Useful for building a visual gallery or checking regressions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | ||
| out_dir | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| with_preview | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this batch-renders all bundled examples, writes OBJ and PNG files into a directory, and is useful for regression checks. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, error handling, permissions, or how timeout and seed affect execution, which are important for a file-writing batch operation.
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 two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded and no wasted text. The second sentence adds useful context without bloating the definition.
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 output schema covers return values, and the description clearly states what is produced and why it is useful. But with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should do more to explain required output directory behavior, preview toggling, timeout, and seed defaults.
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%, so the description must explain the four parameters. It only implicitly references out_dir through 'in a directory' and with_preview through '+ PNG'; it says nothing about seed or timeout, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.
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 states a specific verb and resource: batch-render every bundled example to OBJ and PNG in a directory. It clearly distinguishes this batch gallery operation from single-script rendering siblings such as render_script or preview_script, even without naming them.
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 gives clear usage context: building a visual gallery or checking regressions. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly compare it with render_script or preview_obj, so it falls short of full when/why-not/alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.