Create a procedural sample project to test art pipeline tools, generating a symbol like a plate, gem, letter or highlight, or a character mascot with arms, cape, hair and face features.
Create a procedural sample project to try the tools on. kind: "symbol" (slot symbol: plate, gem, letter, highlight) or "character" (mascot with arms, cape, hair locks, face features, ears).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| out_dir | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for what is clearly a write operation. It says nothing about writing files to disk, whether out_dir is created or must pre-exist, whether existing content is overwritten, or what the resulting project layout is.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the parameter enumeration. Tight and free of filler, though the second sentence reads as a schema footnote rather than an integrated constraint.
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?
No annotations and no output schema, for a tool that creates artifacts on disk and sits among a dozen similar sample generators. Missing the output location semantics, overwrite behavior, and sibling differentiation that an agent would need to call this confidently.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents `kind` well, listing both allowed values and describing their sub-parts, which materially exceeds the bare schema. It says nothing about `out_dir` beyond the self-evident name, leaving half the parameters undocumented.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Create a procedural sample project") and enumerates the two `kind` values with helpful parenthetical detail about what each contains. However, it never distinguishes this tool from the many sibling sample generators (make_biped_sample, make_creature_sample, make_face_sample, make_serpent_sample, make_flier_sample, make_host_sample, make_quadruped_sample), so an agent cannot tell which sample maker to pick.
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?
"to try the tools on" weakly implies a scratch/test scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no guidance pointing to the more specific *_sample siblings. The agent must infer selection from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.