Attach the Journeyman's rationale to a specific code symbol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npub | No | ||
| dpop_token | No | ||
| symbol_fqn | Yes | Fully-qualified name of the code symbol the decision is about. | |
| decision_id | Yes | Id of the Decision (from assert_rationale). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. For a tool that likely modifies state, this is insufficient.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is extremely brief and could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, prerequisites, or the purpose of npub and dpop_token, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
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 50% (only symbol_fqn and decision_id have descriptions). The description adds meaning by stating symbol_fqn is a fully-qualified name and decision_id comes from assert_rationale, but npub and dpop_token remain unexplained. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the action (attach rationale to symbol) and identifies the resource (code symbol). However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like cypher_assert_rationale or cypher_bind_capability_to_symbol, which might cause confusion.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it follows cypher_assert_rationale (via decision_id), but this is not explicit, leaving the agent unaware of prerequisites or exclusions.
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.