Retrieve the notes and their positions attached to a specific pattern piece in a CLO3D project. Use this to inspect annotations for design or documentation purposes.
The notes written on a piece, with their positions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that notes and their positions are returned, but does not clarify read-only nature, error conditions, output format, or any side effects. The description adds minimal context beyond the obvious.
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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It is not front-loaded with the most important information (what the tool does). The sentence is not verbose but it does not effectively communicate the core action. It is acceptable in length but poor in content structure.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the structure of the returned annotations, the meaning of 'positions,' or any prerequisites or error behavior. An agent calling this tool would not know what to expect beyond the name and minimal description.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the pattern_index parameter. It does not. The description mentions 'a piece' but does not explicitly connect it to the pattern_index or explain how the index is used. No additional meaning is added over the schema, which only lists the parameter name and type.
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 'The notes written on a piece, with their positions.' implies the tool retrieves annotations, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve.' The resource is vague ('a piece' vs. the pattern identified by pattern_index). It does not clearly distinguish from sibling add_pattern_annotation, though that tool is obviously for creating. The purpose is discernible but not precise.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it retrieves annotations for a specific pattern, nor does it contrast with add_pattern_annotation or other get tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.