Automatically arranges child nodes in a Houdini network editor, organizing node graphs for clearer inspection and navigation. Specify a node path to lay out its children.
Auto-layout child nodes in the network editor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_path | No | /obj |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether the operation is read-only or mutates the scene, what permissions are needed, whether it's reversible, or what the output looks like (despite an output schema existing). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name.
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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is too terse for a tool with an output schema and an undocumented parameter. It doesn't waste words, but it also doesn't earn its place by adding value.
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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and a complex sibling set (Houdini network editing), the description is far too sparse. It should explain the effect on the scene, the role of node_path, and expected outcome. The presence of an output schema doesn't excuse the lack of basic operational context.
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% for the single parameter 'node_path'. The description does not mention this parameter or clarify its default value '/obj', its format, or whether it represents a node path in Houdini. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 verb ('layout') and resource ('child nodes'), but it's essentially a restatement of the tool name. It does not distinguish from siblings like frame_all, frame_bbox, or frame_selection, which also arrange/view nodes. No detail on what 'auto-layout' means (grid, force-directed, etc.).
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't say it operates on the selected node's children, nor does it reference siblings like list_children or frame_all. Use case is only implied by 'network editor'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.