Identify hierarchy-based root candidates in Blender and quantify world-space displacement, rotation, distance, and derivative events for animation review.
Hierarchy-based root candidates; world-space distance, displacement, rotation and derivative events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No | ||
| object_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not explain what non-read-only effect an analysis tool has, whether it writes caches/results, or what conditions affect behavior. It adds some domain context (world-space metrics, derivative events) but leaves the behavioral profile opaque.
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 definition is only one terse fragment with a semicolon list. It is concise in length but under-specified rather than efficient: the core action and output are not front-loaded, and the meaning of 'hierarchy-based root candidates' is unclear.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description does not compensate for 0% parameter documentation, provide usage context, or clarify the non-read-only annotation. For a tool with two parameters and a required object_name, this is materially incomplete.
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 does not mention the required object_name parameter or explain what the free-form options object controls. With both parameters undocumented in schema and description, the agent has no semantic guidance for invocation.
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 names the analysis domain (root candidates, world-space distance/displacement/rotation, derivative events), which is more specific than the tool name alone. However, it is a verbless noun-phrase fragment and does not clearly state what the tool produces or how it differs from siblings like animation_prepare_root_motion or animation_generate_root_motion.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools such as animation_analyze, animation_prepare_root_motion, or animation_generate_root_motion. The agent must infer entirely from the name and fragmentary description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.