List all UCX_ collision objects in the scene with their complexity to validate physics budgets for game asset export.
Every UCX_ collision object in the scene with its complexity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that it returns every UCX_ collision object with complexity, implying a read-only list operation, but does not disclose whether the result includes hidden objects, sorting, or any side effects. The mention of 'complexity' adds some behavioral context, but details are sparse.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's scope and output in minimal words.
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 parameterless list operation with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states what is listed and includes the 'complexity' attribute. However, it does not clarify the return format (e.g., array, mapping) or what 'complexity' means, which could be ambiguous without further context. Still, for such a simple tool, it is adequate.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, as the schema is empty). No parameter explanation is needed, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description adds no parameter details because none exist.
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 action (list), the resource (UCX_ collision objects), and an attribute (complexity). It distinguishes from the generic list_objects by specifying collision objects, so an agent can select it for collision-specific queries.
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 implies usage for retrieving collision objects but does not explicitly contrast with list_objects or other list tools. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.