Get a concise compiled design state for the active project. Read-only, this snapshot leaves decisions, trace, and persistence unchanged.
Read-only. Return concise state compiled by Design Flow. Requires an active project and cannot alter decisions, TRACE, or persistence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the state is 'compiled by Design Flow,' is concise, requires an active project, and cannot alter decisions, TRACE, or persistence. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states read-only nature, the resource, the main precondition, and a safety guarantee without redundancy.
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?
With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description only needed to cover usage context and behavioral constraints, which it does. The active-project prerequisite and non-mutating guarantee complete the picture for safe invocation.
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 complete, so there are no parameter semantics the description needs to clarify. The baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
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 identifies a clear verb and resource: 'Return concise state compiled by Design Flow.' It distinguishes this from generic mutators and implies an aggregate view, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling getters like get_session_brief or get_trace.
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 provides a clear precondition ('Requires an active project') and implies use when a concise, read-only overall state is needed. However, it does not name alternative tools for related needs or give when-not-to-use guidance, leaving sibling selection somewhat to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.