Count trapped-resin cups per model to identify potential resin pockets before printing, providing a faster check than full validation.
Count resin cups (trapped-resin pockets) per model. Faster than full validation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scene_id | No | Scene id; omit for the default scene | default |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that this is a count operation and that it is faster than full validation, but it does not disclose return shape, preconditions, or error behavior beyond what the annotations cover.
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 two short sentences with no filler; it front-loads the core purpose and then adds a useful performance caveat. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple, read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this description is largely complete: action, resource, per-model scope, and a performance hint. It lacks explicit return-type/error details, but those are not critical for such a straightforward call.
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?
The only parameter, scene_id, is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter detail. It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's existing 'Scene id; omit for the default scene' description.
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?
Description clearly states a specific action ('count') on a specific resource ('resin cups / trapped-resin pockets per model'). It also differentiates from similar detect_* tools by focusing on trapped resin and positioning itself as faster than full validation.
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 'faster than full validation' implies a speed-oriented use case, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative tool is provided. An agent must infer when the trade-off is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.