Create a hashed evidence record for a local file to capture investigation sources, artifacts, or documents, and append it directly to the working report when needed.
Build a hashed evidence record for a local file; append=true adds it to the working report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| kind | No | ||
| note | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| lines | No | ||
| append | No | ||
| workspace | 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=false, idempotentHint=true, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the append semantics and that the record is 'hashed,' but doesn't explain what file interaction occurs or what gets written when append is false.
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?
A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the append variant tacked on. Efficient, though it underspecifies rather than being truly concise.
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 7 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should carry far more weight about the fields and the result. It leaves most parameters and the return behavior unexplained.
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% across 7 parameters. The description only touches 'path' (via 'local file') and 'append'; id, kind, note, lines, and workspace are completely undocumented anywhere, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Build a hashed evidence record for a local file.' This is meaningfully distinct from siblings like aa_inventory or aa_compare, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 append=true clause explains one behavioral variant but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many sibling tools. An agent knows what it does but not when to pick it over aa_inventory or aa_upsert_claim.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.