Select a compact set of compatible library assets for a scene, with explainable reasons and a summary of covered tags and effects.
Recommend a compact, deterministic set of compatible library assets for a scene, with explainable reasons and covered tags/effects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| prompt | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| required_tags | No | ||
| required_kinds | No | ||
| required_variants | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'deterministic' and 'explainable', but doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects it may have, or the structure of the returned recommendation. It also omits any permission or mutation hints, which is a gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 that front-loads the core idea efficiently, but it is so brief it omits critical details. It earns credit for conciseness but lacks structure that elaborates on usage or behavior beyond the headline.
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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how parameters interact, what the 'explainable reasons' format is, or how 'covered tags/effects' are presented in the output. An agent cannot reliably infer how to construct a valid request.
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%, meaning none of the 7 parameters have textual descriptions in the schema, and the tool description mentions none of them. The agent gets no help understanding seed, limit, prompt, category, required_tags, required_kinds, or required_variants, nor how they influence the recommendation.
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 clearly states the tool recommends a compact, deterministic set of compatible library assets for a scene, with explainable reasons and covered tags/effects. It uses a specific verb ('recommend') and resource ('library assets'), and adds unique qualifiers like 'deterministic' and 'explainable', but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like compose_asset_scene or plan_asset_scene.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions for selection, nor does it reference sibling tools such as plan_asset_scene or compose_asset_scene. The description implies it's for recommending assets but offers no exclusions or precedence rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.