Samples global trajectories, path lengths, and maximum step distances to assess drift and jumps, aiding physics-based checks rather than artistic quality.
Sample global trajectories, path lengths and maximum step distances. Useful for drift/jumps; not an artistic quality score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| last | Yes | ||
| step | No | ||
| first | Yes | ||
| objects | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by indicating the analysis is global and quantitative rather than a subjective quality metric, but it does not disclose potential costs, output magnitude, or any other behavioral caveats.
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 short sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the usage caveat is a useful second sentence. Every word earns its place.
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 high-level output categories are stated, and read-only annotations cover safety behavior, so the tool is recognizable and scoped. However, with no output schema and no parameter definitions, an agent still lacks enough detail to know exactly what values to pass or what shape to expect back.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain objects, first, last, and step, but it does not mention any of them. Parameter meanings are only inferable from their names and types, and step semantics are ambiguous (sampling interval vs. output metric).
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 names a specific action and resource ('sample global trajectories, path lengths and maximum step distances') and adds a clear disclaimer that it is not an artistic quality score. It is unambiguous about the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools by name.
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?
It states when the tool is appropriate ('useful for drift/jumps') and explicitly rules out a common misuse ('not an artistic quality score'). It does not name an alternative tool, but the when/when-not guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.