Retrieve the Frame → Make → Edit → Deliver framework before starting creative work, including its eight stages and each creative-direction principle's ID, title, status, and evidence support.
Overview of the lens: the Frame → Make → Edit → Deliver loop, the eight stages and every principle's id, title, status and evidence support. Call first when starting creative work.
| 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?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful output context by listing what the overview contains, though it does not detail response format or pagination behavior.
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?
Two tight sentences with no waste. The content overview is front-loaded, followed by the usage instruction, making the description easy to scan and act on.
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 the simple read-only, parameterless nature of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what the overview returns and when to call it. No critical behavioral or usage information is 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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 tool's scope: an overview of the lens, the Frame → Make → Edit → Deliver loop, eight stages, and every principle's id, title, status, and evidence support. This differentiates it from get_principle by covering all principles at once, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools for contrast.
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?
It gives a clear usage cue: 'Call first when starting creative work.' This establishes when to use it relative to other tools, but it does not state when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives such as get_principle.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.