Align opposite texture borders deterministically to create repeatable backgrounds for water, earth, stone, or grass, using adjustable seam width and format options.
Make opposite texture borders match deterministically for repeatable water, earth, stone, or grass backgrounds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | ||
| seam_width | No | ||
| input_filename | Yes | ||
| output_filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal determinism ('deterministically') and repeatability, which are useful traits, but it says nothing about side effects, whether output overwrites files, input requirements, or resulting behavior of the generated texture. For a file-generating tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
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 concise sentence with no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded before the material examples. It is efficient, though it could have used some of its brevity to mention key parameter semantics without losing clarity.
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 description communicates the high-level intent but is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It omits parameter semantics, output behavior, and operational details such as supported formats or seam width constraints, and there is no output schema or annotations to fill that gap. For a four-parameter generation tool, this leaves substantial room for agent confusion.
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%, so the description must compensate for explaining the four parameters, but none are mentioned. The terms 'texture borders' and 'seamless' hint at the purpose of seam_width, but the actual semantics of format, seam_width, input_filename, and output_filename are left entirely to inference. The description adds no parameter-level value beyond the schema.
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 clear verb and resource: making opposite texture borders match to produce repeatable backgrounds. It also signals specific material use cases (water, earth, stone, grass) and implies tileability, distinguishing it from texture-related siblings like generate_normal_map or apply_material_texture. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
The phrase 'for repeatable water, earth, stone, or grass backgrounds' gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar tasks, such as generate_water_caustics or build_terrain_tileset. This is implied usage rather than explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.