Measure how much of a small disc around a bone, fingertip, or rig point remains unobstructed by arms or a rifle in a first-person Blender pose.
The share of a small disc round a point that the eye sees with nothing (arms, rifle) in the way.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| point | No | a name (a bone such as hand_l, a fingertip such as index_tip_l, a rig point such as port) or [x, y, z] in the frame | port |
| radius_cm | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state the return type (fraction vs percentage), whether it is a read-only query, what 'eye' and 'nothing in the way' imply, or any side effects or permissions.
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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is not front-loaded with a clear action or purpose. The structure is adequate but the cryptic phrasing reduces usefulness.
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?
Given a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter guidance, return value format, and behavioral context needed to invoke it correctly.
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 50%: the 'point' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'radius_cm' is not. The description adds no parameter information, so it fails to compensate for the gap.
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 defines a metric ('share of a small disc round a point that the eye sees') but lacks an action verb and does not distinguish it from siblings like clearance or faces_eye. It is specific enough to identify the domain (visibility), but the exact operation remains unclear.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or contexts mentioned. The description simply states what it computes without usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.