storm_frame_tickAnalyze timer idioms and per-frame constants to flag 60 FPS risks in Storm-engine builds.
Timer idioms and per-frame constants; flags 60 FPS risks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| build | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| seeds | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds only the notion that it 'flags 60 FPS risks,' with no detail on what a flag looks like, what thresholds trigger it, or whether the constants are project-specific or engine defaults. Minimal context beyond structured fields.
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 short sentence with no padding, front-loading the topic and the flag behavior. But it is telegraphic to the point of under-specification, and the semicolon-joined fragment reads as notes rather than a coherent instruction.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Still, a tool with three undocumented parameters, no usage condition, and one vague behavioral claim is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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?
Three parameters (build, limit, seeds) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions any of them. Nothing explains what 'seeds' contains, what 'limit' bounds, or how 'build' scopes the analysis, so an agent cannot fill these meaningfully.
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 the subject matter (timer idioms, per-frame constants) and one output behavior (flags 60 FPS risks), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it uses no verb describing the operation itself (extract? list? analyze?) and gives no indication of how it differs from siblings like storm_stat or storm_explain.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any sibling alternative in a tool family of 21 similarly-named 'storm_*' tools. The agent must guess at the trigger condition for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.