Ready requests for check_steps and judge_naive (the kernels' own examples).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "checker_examples"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses almost nothing beyond a terse relationship to two siblings. It does not state whether the examples are static or generated, whether calling it has side effects, or any other operational trait; the output schema may cover return shape, but behavior remains opaque.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is good. The wording is awkward and front-loads the ambiguous phrase 'Ready requests', leaving the agent to infer the actual action from the parenthetical.
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 zero parameters and an output schema, the definition does not need to explain return values, so the bar is lower. Still, for a tool whose purpose is to bridge examples to check_steps and judge_naive, the description leaves the workflow and the distinction from sibling tools under-specified.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps on the input side.
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 the sibling tools it feeds (check_steps and judge_naive) and says the payload is the kernels' own examples, which gives some concrete grounding. However, 'Ready requests' is vague about the actual operation and output, and it does not clearly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'examples' tool.
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?
By naming check_steps and judge_naive, it implies this tool is used to prepare inputs for those tools, which is useful routing context. It gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not explain how it differs from 'examples', 'judge', or 'language'.
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.