Pose first-person arms from an animation clip at a specified time in seconds; the rifle follows the gun bone while moved parts stay put.
The arms as a clip has them at a time in seconds. The rifle follows the gun bone; its parts stay where move_part left them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clip | Yes | ||
| seconds | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses some behavior (rifle follows gun bone; parts remain where move_part left them) but omits critical details such as whether the tool mutates state, required prerequisites, or how 'clip' and 'seconds' interact. The disclosure is partial and confusing.
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 short (two sentences), so it is not verbose. However, the first sentence is garbled and the second sentence, while useful, is oddly placed. Structure is poor but size is appropriate.
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 two-parameter pose tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It never clarifies the clip format, whether a rig must be loaded first, what the tool returns, or its side effects. The minimal behavioral notes are insufficient 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?
Schema coverage is 0% and no annotations exist, so the description must explain parameters. It only vaguely states 'a time in seconds', which gives the unit for 'seconds' but says nothing about what 'clip' expects (name, path, ID?) or its format. Compensation for the coverage gap is inadequate.
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 is grammatically broken and does not clearly state a verb+resource. 'The arms as a clip has them at a time in seconds' is confusing; it hints at posing arms from a clip but never says 'pose' or defines the action unambiguously. It fails to differentiate from pose_idle or move_part.
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 when-to-use guidance is given. move_part is mentioned only as a behavioral note ('parts stay where move_part left them'), not as an alternative. There is no indication of when this tool should be chosen over pose_idle or other sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.