Retrieve the normalized specification and plan summary of the most recently built garment in the current session, enabling review and verification of its construction.
The normalized spec and plan summary of the last garment built in this session.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It indicates the tool is a read operation (returns a summary) but does not state side effects, error conditions (e.g., what happens if no garment was built), or that it is non-destructive. For a retrieval tool, this is minimal behavioral coverage.
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 a single, compact sentence that directly states the tool's output. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it maximally concise and easy to parse.
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 gives a general idea of the return value (spec and plan summary) but lacks specifics such as the format, exact content, or behavior when no garment has been built. With no output schema, the description is the only source of return info, so this gap is notable but acceptable for a low-complexity tool.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist. This score reflects that no semantic gaps are present beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 clearly identifies the resource: 'the normalized spec and plan summary of the last garment built in this session.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like pattern_info or fabric_list. Though it lacks an explicit verb, the name and phrasing imply retrieval, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the name. Without mention of alternatives like garment_build or pattern_info, the agent gets no clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.