Retrieve every animated graphic saved in the local library along with its phases, allowing access to previously stored assets for reuse in editing.
Every animated graphic saved to this machine's library (graphic_save), with its phases.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.43.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds small context beyond annotations: it addresses the full library scope and the inclusion of phases. It does not contradict the annotations and contributes some behavioral information, but not much.
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?
One short sentence with no filler. It conveys the core content of the tool and the phase detail efficiently, earning a top score for appropriate sizing and front-loading.
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?
With no parameters, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It communicates the full scope of the result set and a key property (phases). Minor ambiguity about the exact action and what 'phases' means remains, but the low complexity keeps this from being a serious gap.
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 and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description has no parameter burden, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing here that the schema fails to document.
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 (animated graphics in the machine library) and adds a relevant detail (includes their phases), but it is a noun phrase without a verb. It doesn't clearly state the operation (list? retrieve? open?), making the purpose somewhat vague, though it is not a tautology.
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 given on when to use this tool versus siblings like graphic_ls, graphic_sheet, or graphic_load. The only reference to graphic_save suggests provenance, not when to call this tool, and there are no exclusions or alternative-routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.