Generate organic patterns by running DLA, differential-growth, or substrate growth algorithms; returns point sets and paths for generative art.
Run a growth algorithm (DLA, differential-growth, substrate) and return the resulting point set and/or paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | ||
| seeds | No | ||
| width | Yes | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| params | No | ||
| algorithm | Yes | ||
| iterations | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a point set and/or paths, but it does not say whether it modifies the document, creates layers, depends on seed values, or has any side effects.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. However, its brevity comes at the cost of needed detail rather than being concise while still informative.
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?
This is a complex, 7-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions. The description covers the basic action and output shape but omits parameter meaning, mutation behavior, determinism, and situational guidance, so it is not complete enough for reliable use.
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 seven parameters, including nested seeds and a free-form params object. The description only lists algorithm names already present in the schema and provides no meaning for width, height, seed, seeds, params, or iterations.
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 specific verb and resource: run a growth algorithm to produce a pattern, naming DLA, differential-growth, and substrate. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate this tool from nearby pattern or plant-growth siblings such as design_grow_plant, design_advance_plant_growth, or design_add_pattern.
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 explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. With many sibling tools dealing with patterns, growth, distribution, and points, the description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.