Validates coating variants against wear-level bands and physical finish rules, flagging wear outside allowed areas or finishes that break physical constraints.
Each variant against its wear level's band, wear kept out of corners, every finish physical.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bake_folder | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing behavioral: no read-only vs mutation signal, no error/failure semantics, no side effects. 'wear kept out of corners, every finish physical' conveys no actionable 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?
It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy: a single cryptic sentence with no front-loaded statement of purpose. Being concise does not earn credit when the content is non-informative.
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 tool with a required undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides essentially none of the information needed to invoke it correctly. Nothing compensates for the structured-data gaps.
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 single required parameter bake_folder has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The agent has no idea what a 'bake folder' is, whether it is a path, an ID, or a template reference.
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 phrase 'Each variant against its wear level's band' hints at validating variants against wear-level bands, but there is no clear verb+resource statement and 'wear kept out of corners, every finish physical' is opaque. An agent cannot confidently tell what check_coating does versus check_finish or validate_spec.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative is mentioned, despite many plausible siblings (check_finish, check_library, validate_spec, list_wear_levels). The agent must guess whether this is a pre-bake check, a spec validation, or something else.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.