Retrieve outfit layer details including export names, parent body parts, paint status, and paths. Use this to inspect character layers before painting or animating.
List design layers (10 export names), parent/body parts, paint status, paths.
allow_overhang is always true (body is not a clip).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| output_dir | No |
| 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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It makes the basic behavior clear through 'List' and lists the returned information, and it adds a useful invariant: `allow_overhang` is always true. However, it does not disclose whether `output_dir` causes any file writes or side effects, which is relevant given that parameter exists.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence quickly establishes the operation and output content; the second adds one useful domain invariant. No filler or redundant phrases are present.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool's description is incomplete for safe invocation. The meaning of `name` and `output_dir` is absent, there is no usage context relative to siblings, and no guidance about side effects. The core purpose is clear, but key call-time details are missing.
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%, and the description fails to explain either parameter. `name` and `output_dir` are completely undocumented, and the only mentioned term `allow_overhang` is not a schema parameter. The agent must guess what values to pass.
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 specific verb ('List') on a clear resource ('design layers') and enumerates the exact contents: 10 export names, parent/body parts, paint status, and paths. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_outfit_slot_specs, but the resource is distinct enough to infer.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention when this tool is appropriate over siblings, what `name` should be, or any preconditions. The agent must infer context from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.