Build a rigged weapon action from a parts map: assign bones to moving parts and validate gun facts against the action.
A gun rigged for its action from its parts map: one bone a moving part, the gun facts checked against the action.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| partsmap | Yes | a parts map file (weaponlab-partsmap/1) |
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 behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing: no side effects, no file/asset mutations, no error or validation behavior beyond the vague 'facts checked against the action'. Nothing tells the agent whether this writes files or what it returns.
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 this is under-specification rather than conciseness: the single clause 'one bone a moving part' is opaque and consumes the space where actionable detail should be. The sentence is not front-loaded with a clear action.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a pipeline role among many rig_* siblings, the description omits everything an agent needs: output/return behavior, prerequisites, and how it differs from rig_facts or gunkit_verify. Only the input file concept is recoverable, and that comes from the schema.
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?
Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with the partsmap field documented as a 'weaponlab-partsmap/1' file. The description echoes the parts map concept but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'A gun rigged for its action from its parts map' gestures at a verb (rig) and a resource (gun), but the inverted grammar and jargon like 'action' make the actual operation hard to pin down. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as rig_facts, gunkit_verify, or gunkit_build.
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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives despite many overlapping siblings (rig_facts, rig_pieces, rig_align, gunkit_verify). The agent is left to infer the entire selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.