Measure a completed NPZ motion for timing, skeleton structure, root travel, bounds, and finite-value errors so you can validate results before review or export.
Measure a completed NPZ: timing, skeleton, root travel, bounds and finite-value checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | motion_00.npz | |
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that it operates on a completed NPZ and performs measurements including finite-value checks, but it does not disclose error behavior or result interpretation; the output schema handles return values.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste: it states the operation, the target artifact, and the measured aspects. The structure is appropriately concise for a simple inspection tool.
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 output schema and annotations reduce the description's burden, and the listed measurements make the tool understandable. However, with 0% schema parameter coverage, the missing explanation of job_id/name and the absence of sibling routing leave clear gaps.
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 parameter documentation. It never mentions the required job_id or the optional name parameter, only referring broadly to a 'completed NPZ'; this gives at most a minimal hint about the file name but leaves the required job identifier unexplained.
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 gives a specific verb (Measure) and resource (a completed NPZ), then lists concrete measured aspects: timing, skeleton, root travel, bounds, and finite-value checks. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as inspect_motion_frames, validate_motion, or analyze_motion_quality.
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 'completed NPZ' implies use after generation, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over validate_motion, analyze_motion_quality, or inspect_motion_frames. The description gives no when-not conditions or alternative-tool routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.