Apply a deterministic max-style review gate to confidence scores, comparing each against set thresholds to decide escalation—no model call, writes, or external actions.
Apply a deterministic max-style review gate to explicit probabilities or confidences. No model call, writes, or external action occurs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signals | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'No model call, writes, or external action occurs' and 'deterministic', but these largely reinforce the annotations. The phrase 'max-style review gate' is vague and does not explain the actual gating logic, thresholds, or return value. With no output schema, the agent is left without critical behavioral context.
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 concise—two short sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a safety qualifier. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity contributes to under-specification.
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 tool takes a complex array input with nested objects and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the decision logic, what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, list of triggered signals), or the meaning of 'max-style'. An agent cannot reliably infer how to invoke this tool correctly or interpret its result.
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 only says 'explicit probabilities or confidences' without explaining that the 'signals' parameter is an array of objects with id, value, threshold, and comparator fields. The structure and semantics of the only parameter are left entirely to the schema, which lacks prose descriptions.
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 states a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('deterministic max-style review gate') and clarifies the input domain ('explicit probabilities or confidences'). It also distinguishes itself from model-calling tools by noting 'No model call, writes, or external action occurs.' However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (typesafe_route, typesafe_rank, etc.). No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned. An agent is left to infer usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.