Creates an animated water surface that hides the flat ground, with adjustable size, wave height, choppiness, and wind velocity for realistic water effects.
Animated ocean surface. Hides the flat ground while it exists. 바다 표면. size 넓이(m), wave_scale 파도 높이(0.5 잔잔 / 1.5 보통 / 4 거침).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | ||
| frames | No | ||
| choppiness | No | ||
| wave_scale | No | ||
| wind_velocity | No | ||
| preview_frames | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses one behavioral trait (hides the flat ground) but with no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It omits important behaviors such as whether it creates a persistent object, how animation interacts with frames, whether it is destructive, and performance implications.
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 very brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a side effect and compact parameter hints. It contains no fluff, though the Korean text may be redundant for some agents, it contributes semantic value without bloat.
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?
For a tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only the basic purpose and two parameter hints. It fails to explain the remaining parameters, return behavior, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.
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?
The description adds meaning for only two of six parameters: size (width in meters) and wave_scale (calm/normal/rough). With 0% schema description coverage, it must explain all parameters; frames, choppiness, wind_velocity, and preview_frames remain completely unexplained.
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 action ('Animated ocean surface') and a side effect ('Hides the flat ground while it exists'), which gives a clear purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'water', leaving some ambiguity about which surface tool to choose.
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 given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as 'water', 'splash', or 'set_ground'. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and brief description, which is insufficient for an agent facing many similar scene tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.