Lists wear levels with their mask thresholds and visual definitions, so you can identify new, issued, worn, and abused surface conditions and apply the correct finish.
The wear levels (new, issued, worn, abused): each mask's threshold and what the level looks like.
| 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?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the payload — per-mask thresholds and a description of how each level looks — which is the main behavioral fact for a static lookup. It does not state that the call is a side-effect-free read, nor anything about ordering or return shape, leaving a gap that annotations would normally cover.
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?
A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource name and immediately followed by the level enumeration. The trailing clause 'what the level looks like' is slightly vague but does add real information rather than padding.
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 parameterless reference lookup with no output schema, the description conveys enough: what the records are, the four level values, and that each carries a threshold plus a description. Missing only the return format and whether thresholds are global or per-model, which are minor for a static list.
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 disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical level names do not map to any input, only to output content.
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 the resource (wear levels) and goes further by enumerating the four level names and stating that each carries a threshold and a visual description. It is not verb-led ('list' comes only from the name) and never explicitly says it returns anything, but the resource is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like list_finishes or list_templates.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus the other lookup tools (check_finish, list_finishes, read_finish), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the word 'levels'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.