Scatter source objects across a surface using geometry nodes for non-destructive instances or as real copies, with controls for count, seed, scale, and alignment.
把 source 散布到 surface 表面。method: GEOMETRY_NODES（非破坏实例）或 COPIES（真实副本）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| method | No | GEOMETRY_NODES | |
| source | Yes | ||
| surface | Yes | ||
| scale_range | No | ||
| align_to_normal | 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 carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It mentions that GEOMETRY_NODES is non-destructive and COPIES creates real copies, but it does not disclose whether the source is modified, whether new objects are created, or what happens to the surface object.
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 brief and front-loaded, with no redundant wording. The method explanation adds useful detail without bloating the text.
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 tool has seven parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and only a terse description. It lacks information about return values, side effects, prerequisites, and how parameters interact, making the tool incomplete for reliable agent usage.
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 only explains the method parameter and implicitly clarifies source and surface. Parameters such as seed, count, scale_range, and align_to_normal are left completely unexplained, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.
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 clearly states the tool's action: scattering a source object onto a surface. It also distinguishes between the two method modes, non-destructive instances and real copies, which helps clarify the intended behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling 'distribute_objects' tool.
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 gives minimal usage context by explaining the two method options, but it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. There is no guidance on how source and surface should be specified or what conditions are needed for successful scattering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.