Inject, initialize, or hot-swap behavior tree instances in the browser runtime to manage autonomous agent behaviors.
Inject, initialize, or hot-swap a behavior tree instance in the browser runtime.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| project | No | ||
| trace_id | No | ||
| parameters | No | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| intention_id | No | ||
| behavior_name | Yes | ||
| behavior_version | No | ||
| client_request_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It hints at mutation ('inject, initialize, hot-swap') but does not explain side effects, destruction (unload), permission requirements, or reversibility. This is inadequate for a tool with potentially destructive actions.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. However, it is under-specified for a 9-parameter tool; the brevity borders on insufficient information rather than efficient delivery.
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?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, enum, nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain required parameters, action semantics, or any preconditions, making it impossible for an agent to call correctly without opening the schema and guessing.
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% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain the 'action' enum, the required 'behavior_name', or optional fields like project, parameters, or session_id. The tool's usability relies entirely on the schema, which also lacks descriptions.
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 states a clear verb phrase ('Inject, initialize, or hot-swap') and a specific resource ('a behavior tree instance in the browser runtime'). It conveys the primary function without ambiguity, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like manage_behaviors.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions for selecting 'load' vs 'swap', or scenarios where another tool (e.g., set_parameters) would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.