Project a candidate state or plan step onto the Singular Transition Manifold M = F(S0) ∩ B(Goal).
Returns the corrected state, corrective delta vector Delta S = S* - S, and boundary distance margins.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | ||
| lattice_id | No | ||
| lattice_data | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the outputs (corrected state, delta vector, boundary distances) but does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions. The operation is likely read-only, but this is not stated explicitly.
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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes the mathematical definition and return types with no waste. It is efficiently structured for quick parsing.
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 output schema covers return values, but the description fails to explain how the three optional parameters (state, lattice_id, lattice_data) should be used or when they are needed. This leaves gaps for an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly, though the core operation is clear.
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. It references a 'candidate state' but does not explain the role of lattice_id or lattice_data, nor how they relate to the projection. The parameters remain largely opaque beyond their names.
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 states the verb 'Project' and the resource 'candidate state or plan step onto the Singular Transition Manifold', and specifies the return values. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like cognitive.synthesize_singular_path or cognitive.verify_lattice_transition, relying on the specialized terminology to imply uniqueness.
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. It lacks any 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' statements, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the mathematical phrasing alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.