Render developer views of posed weapon parts dumps into an output folder to inspect first-person weapon animations outside the game.
Dev views of parts dumps (not the game's view).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objs | Yes | ||
| out_folder | Yes |
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 must carry behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only visualization, a file-writing operation, required permissions, side effects, or output format. The cryptic note about 'dev views' vs 'game's view' doesn't clarify behavior.
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?
It's a single short sentence, so it is concise, but it is not front-loaded with actionable information and the vague phrasing wastes the limited space on an unclear distinction.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is critically incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the tool does, what the parameters mean, or what the result will be.
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%. The description provides no information about the 'objs' array or 'out_folder' parameter—what objects are expected, what format, or what the output folder receives. It fails to compensate for the schema 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 'Dev views of parts dumps (not the game's view)' is cryptic and doesn't state a clear verb+resource. It vaguely references rendering but the phrase 'parts dumps' is jargon and the tool name 'motion_render' is not explained.
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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling motion_* tools (motion_roll, motion_track, etc.) or when not to use it. The parenthetical '(not the game's view)' hints at a distinction but doesn't name an alternative or condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.