comic_design_briefReturn the no-server-LLM Living Panels authoring brief: PanelScript instructions, schema, unit templates, and success criteria. Use this when the MCP client will do the creative direction with its own model, then call comic_submit_design with the authored Story JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| premise | Yes | Premise the client will use to author the Living Panels PanelScript JSON itself. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safe read nature. The description adds useful context about the brief contents and intended workflow, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions or hidden behaviors are apparent. Minor gaps like response format details are acceptable for a simple getter.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then provides usage context. Every sentence contributes meaning. The term 'no-server-LLM' is slightly terse but not wasteful.
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 simple getter with one parameter, the description is complete. It lists the return contents (PanelScript instructions, schema, unit templates, success criteria) and gives usage context. Annotations cover the safety profile. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains what is returned.
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% (single parameter 'premise' with a clear description). The main description does not add additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameter.
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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and names the resource 'no-server-LLM Living Panels authoring brief' with enumerated contents (PanelScript instructions, schema, unit templates, success criteria). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the authoring brief and referencing the follow-up tool comic_submit_design.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when the MCP client will do creative direction with its own model. It also connects to the next step (comic_submit_design). However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternative tools like comic_revision_brief, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.