rupa_muat

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description confirms this by noting that SVG paths are 'di-extrude' or 'di-bevel', implying modification and potential destruction of original data. It adds valuable behavioral context on how SVG fills and strokes are treated differently, and mentions that using the same extrusion value for both results in 'pita setipis kertas yang melayang' (paper-thin floating ribbon). This goes beyond the annotation's binary flag and provides concrete behavioral expectations.

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 concise, with two sentences that pack critical information. The first sentence lists formats and introduces the SVG extrusion capability. The second sentence explains the precision advantage. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and key differentiator. No fluff, but it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for formats, though the brevity is a strength.

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 tool's complexity (multiple formats, mode-specific parameters for SVG, and the nuance of relative vs absolute thickness), the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the primary use case and key pitfalls. It mentions the precision benefit of SVG extrusion and warns about the 'paper-thin' issue. However, it does not describe return values or side effects (like whether the original file is modified), but with no output schema and destructiveHint=true, these are minor gaps. The description covers the essentials well.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. However, the description adds significant extra meaning beyond the schema, especially for `ekstrusi` and `tebal_nisbi`, explaining the difference between fill vs stroke paths and the recommended relative thickness method. It also notes that absolute units are unpredictable due to scale differences (SVG 64x64 becomes 0.0169 Blender units). This enriches the agent's understanding of how to use parameters correctly.

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 clearly states the tool imports 3D files (.glb, .gltf, .obj, .fbx, .stl, .ply) and 2D vectors (.svg) into a scene. It uses a specific verb ('Impor') and resource ('berkas 3D... atau VEKTOR 2D') and mentions the unique 2D→3D capability for SVG. This distinguishes it from siblings like `rupa_cad_impor` (likely CAD-specific) and `rupa_adegan_aset` (likely asset placement).

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 description gives clear context for when to use this tool, especially highlighting the SVG extrusion as 'jalur 2D→3D paling presisi yang ada' (most precise 2D→3D path). However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like `rupa_cad_impor` for CAD files. But the supported file types are enumerated, making it clear this is for general model/vector import.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.