Generates procedural sample assets for serpent rigs: a koi fish or a tentacle with suckers, enabling quick rig testing.
Procedural sample for rig_serpent. kind "fish": a koi (body, head, eye, fin_dorsal, fin_pectoral, tail_fin), head to the right. kind "tentacle": one tapered tentacle with suckers, base at the bottom.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | fish | |
| out_dir | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses what the generated asset contains (body parts, orientation, tapered tentacle base), but says nothing about file output, format, or whether files in out_dir are overwritten.
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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, with per-kind detail appended. Tight and mostly waste-free, though the parenthetical part list is dense.
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 and no output schema, the description should carry the full contract for a file-writing generator. It covers content well but omits destination semantics and output form, leaving gaps for an agent to call it correctly.
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% and the schema provides no enum, so the description is the only source of valid kind values — it documents both 'fish' and 'tentacle' with content detail, which is real added value. However out_dir is never explained, leaving one of two parameters undocumented anywhere.
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?
States a specific action (generate a procedural sample) tied to a named consumer (rig_serpent), and enumerates the parts each kind yields. This lets an agent place it against the swarm of make_*_sample siblings, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied via the pairing with rig_serpent; there is no explicit statement of when to generate this sample versus make_sample or make_creature_sample, nor any prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.