Check collection state and publish the authored report as an immutable snapshot, optionally generating companion packs like Mermaid, ADR, onboarding, delta, or llms-txt.
Check collection state and publish the authored report as an immutable snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emit | No | Optional companion report packs to generate alongside HTML/Markdown (mermaid, adr, onboarding, delta, llms-txt, or all) | |
| partial | No | ||
| workspace | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / properties / emitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional companion report packs to generate alongside HTML/Markdown (mermaid, adr, onboarding, delta, llms-txt, or all)",
+ "items": {
+ "enum": [
+ "mermaid",
+ "adr",
+ "onboarding",
+ "delta",
+ "llms-txt",
+ "all"
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this writes but is repeatable. The description adds real value with 'immutable snapshot', warning that the result is frozen, but it says nothing about what 'check collection state' enforces, what happens when the state check fails, or whether a prior snapshot is overwritten.
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 14-word sentence with the verification step front-loaded before the publish action, and no filler whatsoever.
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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the resulting snapshot is and what the collection-state check can report, and it does neither. Combined with two undocumented parameters on a non-readOnly tool, an agent lacks what it needs to invoke this confidently.
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 only 33%: 'emit' is documented in the schema, while 'workspace' and 'partial' are bare. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required workspace string and the partial-workflow flag, whose semantics are non-obvious for a publish operation.
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?
It states two concrete actions on a specific resource: verify collection state and publish the authored report as an immutable snapshot. That is far clearer than a tautology, though it never names how it differs from aa_validate or aa_render, which an agent could easily confuse with this step.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative is named. The only signal is the implied finality of 'publish ... as an immutable snapshot', leaving the agent to infer that this is the terminal step after aa_render/aa_validate rather than using those.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.