Fetch a design part's notes, extracted motion parameters, and index.html source path by anchor or note name. Returns anchors and parts table for reuse.
取一个设计零件的完整说明。id 传零件锚点（如 "bento#chart"、"spine#dot"、"triage#toolbar"）或笔记名（如 "bento"）。锚点形式返回：所在笔记、锚点的「可拆」说明文本、提取出的关键参数（时长/缓动/尺寸/频率）、该笔记 index.html 的绝对路径（直接打开细读源码）。笔记名形式返回：笔记摘要、全部可拆锚点列表、零件表条目。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 零件锚点（"note#anchor"，如 "spine#dot"）或笔记名（"bento"） |
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 does so unusually well: it discloses what is returned in each of the two modes (note/anchor text, extracted parameters, absolute index.html path, anchor lists, parts table). It does not state permissions or error behavior, but for a read-style retrieval tool the return-shape disclosure is the substantive trait.
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 paragraph that leads with the purpose before enumerating the two return modes by input form. No filler, though the enumeration is dense and slightly hard to parse at first read.
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 dual-mode retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it fully explains return values for both input forms, which is the main complexity. It omits any mention of the sibling tools or failure cases, which keeps it short of complete routing context.
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 schema already documents the id field, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by concretely tying each id form to a different return payload ('bento#chart' vs 'bento'). This dual-mode semantics is not derivable from the schema alone.
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 names a specific verb (take/get) and resource (a design part's complete description), and goes beyond the name by enumerating exactly what a part entry contains. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings search_parts or get_source, so an agent cannot tell where this tool's boundary lies from the description alone.
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?
Usage is implied through the two documented id forms (anchor vs note name) and what each returns, which guides the agent on which input to pass. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of search_parts as the discovery alternative, and no note on when get_source should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.