Pack UV islands of a 3D object into a compact layout to maximize texture space usage, minimizing gaps. Supports margin control and rotation for efficient UV unwrapping.
打包 UV 岛。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| margin | No | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| rotate | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'pack UV islands' without revealing side effects (e.g., whether it modifies UV coordinates destructively, how it handles existing layouts, or any required state). This is a significant gap for a transformation tool.
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 extremely concise, consisting of a single phrase. It is free of fluff, but it is so short that it borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication. The structure is acceptable, but the brevity limits its usefulness.
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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what 'packing' entails, what the result looks like, any requirements (e.g., an existing UV map), or how the parameters affect the outcome. An agent would have little confidence in using this tool 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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions, and the description adds nothing about margin, rotate, or object. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (margin, rotate, object), but the description does not clarify their meaning, ranges, or relationships. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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 clear verb ('pack') and resource ('UV islands'), indicating the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like unwrap_uv or mark_seams, but the action is specific enough to be understood. No mention of scope or expected outcome beyond the basic action.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an active UV map) or typical use cases. The description is purely declarative with no situational advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.