Compile a declarative scene to report stroke and point counts, bounding box, pen-up travel, and warnings without drawing or rendering, so you can estimate plot cost before committing ink.
Compile a scene and report what it would cost, WITHOUT drawing or rendering: stroke/point counts, bounding box, pen-up travel and any warnings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scene | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that the tool compiles and reports cost without drawing or rendering, and it lists the exact output contents (counts, bounding box, travel, warnings).
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key constraint (no drawing/rendering) and the reported outputs are packed efficiently using a colon list.
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 adequately covers the tool's purpose and output content even without an output schema, and annotations cover safety. However, the input scene parameter is a nested object with no schema description and the description provides no structural guidance, leaving a notable gap for an agent trying to construct a valid call.
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?
There is one required parameter named 'scene' with 0% schema description coverage and a nested object type, yet the description only repeats the word 'scene' from the tool name. No details about the scene structure, format, or required fields are provided, so it does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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?
States the specific verb 'Compile' and resource 'scene', and explicitly distinguishes the operation from drawing/rendering siblings with 'WITHOUT drawing or rendering'. It also names the reported outputs (stroke/point counts, bounding box, pen-up travel, warnings), so an agent can tell it apart from draw_scene and preview_scene without opening the schemas.
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?
The description implies usage by saying it compiles and reports cost without drawing or rendering, which helps avoid using it when actual drawing is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like preview_scene or draw_scene, nor does it name alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.