Reports last-run weapon grip holds to show which preset was used, where fingers curled to contact, what blocked them, arm angles, and hand offset from the surface.
The last run's holds: each preset's source, the fingers' curls and what stopped them, the arm's angles (reported, not enforced), how far a hand was set down off the surface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| facts | Yes | a Gun Kit facts file (gunfacts.json) of the gun |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the report's contents and the 'reported, not enforced' nuance for arm angles, but never states that the tool is read-only or that it has no side effects, nor does it mention error behavior when no prior run exists.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; each clause maps to a reported field. It is dense with domain jargon but structurally efficient.
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?
The description lists return contents but omits prerequisites (a completed run) and the relationship to run_hands/clip_report. For a report tool with no output schema, this leaves a gap in how to invoke it correctly.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'facts' parameter is documented in the schema as a Gun Kit facts file. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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 resource (the last run's holds) and enumerates the report's contents, which distinguishes it from preset-management siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from clip_report, the other report tool, so an agent must infer the choice.
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 guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., a prior run_hands call), and no mention of clip_report as an alternative. The agent is left to infer that this is the report to call after running hands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.