Retrieve sewing groups, pattern/edge references, directions, and raw properties from the active garment scene without modifying it.
Sewing groups, pattern/edge references, directions and raw properties. Does not mutate the MD scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It explicitly says 'Does not mutate the MD scene', which is a valuable behavioral disclosure in the absence of annotations. However, it doesn't mention return format, data freshness, permissions, or error behavior, so coverage is partial. No annotation contradiction.
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 text is short and contains no filler, but the first sentence is a non-sentence fragment and 'raw properties' is vague. It is concise but the structure is not polished enough for a 4/5.
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?
The description leaves the agent to infer that the tool returns a list of all sewings and doesn't describe the result shape, which matters because there is no output schema. It also fails to point to inspect_sewing for per-sewing detail, so the tool is not fully self-contained.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 first sentence enumerates data categories ('Sewing groups, pattern/edge references, directions and raw properties') without a verb, so it doesn't affirmatively state that the tool returns or lists sewings. The name supplies the verb, and the second sentence only adds a negative safety property. This is a vague purpose rather than a specific action statement.
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 usage context is given: it doesn't say when to call list_sewings vs inspect_sewing or create_sewing, nor mention any prerequisites or conditions. The only hint is 'Does not mutate', which implies a read use but does not guide the choice among read siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.