Tests SVG legibility across multiple pixel sizes by generating a scale test layer and returning observations about readability at each size.
Create a scale test layer showing an SVG at multiple sizes. Returns observations about legibility at each size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| sizes | No | Pixel sizes (default: [16,32,64,128,256]) | |
| sourceSvg | Yes | SVG content to test |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool creates a layer and returns legibility observations, which is useful behavioral context, but it omits whether the layer is added to the current document, whether existing layers are affected, and the exact shape of the returned observations.
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 two tight sentences with no wasted wording. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the useful return-value context.
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?
For a four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the central action and return purpose, but leaves gaps around x/y semantics and the structure of the returned observations. It is adequate for invocation in simple cases but not fully complete.
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 schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description does not compensate for the gaps. It mentions the SVG source and multiple sizes, but says nothing about the x and y parameters, which are undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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 and resource: creating a scale test layer that displays an SVG at multiple sizes. It also explains the observable outcome, observations about legibility at each size. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby design/preview tools.
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?
Usage is implied by the stated purpose: use this when testing how an SVG reads across multiple pixel sizes. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools such as preview or capture tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.