Repeat an object around a chosen axis by a set angle and merge copies to create radial patterns like gears, wheels, or petals.
Repeat an object around a world axis through center, over angle degrees (360 is a full circle), and merge the
copies. Wheels' spokes, columns in a ring, petals, gears.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| axis | No | Z | |
| name | No | ||
| angle | No | ||
| count | Yes | ||
| center | No | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| keep_source | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that copies are merged and clarifies the angle semantic ('360 is a full circle'), but is silent on whether the source is preserved, what `keep_source` effects are, or anything about the resulting object/name.
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?
Two tight sentences: the mechanism is front-loaded and the use-case examples are relegated to the end. No wasted words and the angle default is clarified inline.
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?
No annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover the whole surface. It handles the core operation well but omits the meaning of keep_source/name and says nothing about the returned result, leaving gaps for a 7-parameter mutation tool.
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% across 7 params, so the description must compensate. It explains three key params (axis, center, angle with the 360 default nuance) but leaves count, object, name, and keep_source entirely undefined.
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 a specific verb+resource ('Repeat an object... and merge the copies') and captures the radial arrangement precisely. It implicitly distinguishes from a linear `array`/`mirror` sibling, though it never names them, so an agent must infer the distinction from the word 'radial' and the examples.
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 trailing examples ('Wheels' spokes, columns in a ring, petals, gears') give concrete usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no exclusion or routing to alternatives like `array`, `mirror`, or `scatter`, which are plausible confusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.