Analyze a file, ZIP archive, or directory and receive a single correction proposal without modifying any files; apply changes only after explicit confirmation.
Erzeugt nach einer Analyse nur einen Korrekturvorschlag. Es werden noch keine Dateien verändert.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| program_name | No |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that no files are changed, which is a critical non-destructive trait. This is a strong and relevant disclosure for a proposal tool, though it does not cover other potential behaviors like idempotency or error handling. The key behavior is clearly communicated.
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 long, concise, and front-loads the most important information: the tool generates a proposal and does not modify files. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.
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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain the parameters, the expected input format, or what a 'correction proposal' entails (e.g., its structure or how it is returned). The only contextual hint is 'nach einer Analyse', but this is vague. Given the low schema coverage and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete for correct invocation.
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 schema has two parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description provides no explanation of what run_id or program_name mean. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not mention the parameters at all. This leaves the agent without any guidance on how to fill the parameters correctly, making this dimension a significant gap.
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 tool's function: after an analysis, it creates one correction proposal, and explicitly notes that no files are changed. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool apply_corrections, which presumably applies changes, though the alternative is not named. The verb 'erzeugt' (creates) and the resource 'Korrekturvorschlag' (correction proposal) make the purpose clear.
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 a contextual condition ('nach einer Analyse' – after an analysis), which suggests when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it mention the sibling tool apply_corrections as the alternative for applying the proposal. The usage guidance is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.