Adds 2/3/4-key simultaneous presses with hidden midspin to a specified floor in an ADOFAI level file, for creating multi-key patterns in custom rhythm maps.
2/3/4키 동시치기 추가 (0.01° 히든 미드스핀).
Args: level_path: .adofai 절대경로 floor: 동시치기를 넣을 타일 번호 keys: 2(양손) / 3 / 4
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keys | No | ||
| floor | Yes | ||
| level_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait — the pattern inserts a hidden 0.01° midspin — which an agent could not infer from the name. However it says nothing about whether the file is written in place, whether it requires a validated level, or what is returned.
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?
One scoping sentence followed by a compact Args block that maps each parameter to its meaning. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the Korean-only text may add a reading cost for non-Korean agents.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs to state side effects and result shape, which this description omits. It covers parameters and one behavioral quirk but leaves file-write semantics, error cases, and return value unaddressed.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: level_path is an absolute .adofai path, floor is the target tile index, and keys enumerates the valid values (2 = both hands / 3 / 4). This adds meaning beyond the bare integer/string types in the schema, though the default (keys=2) is not restated.
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?
States a specific action (add a 2/3/4-key simultaneous-press pattern) against a specific resource (an ADOFAI level, at a given floor). The parenthetical '(0.01° hidden midspin)' specifies the exact pattern variant, so the purpose is concrete. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like generate_full_map or adjust_effects, which is the only gap.
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 guidance on when to choose this over siblings such as generate_full_map or adjust_effects, and no prerequisites or ordering constraints (e.g., must the level be loaded/validated first). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.