Validates a report model and optionally verifies cited local files and their hashes. Use it to confirm an investigation report is complete and its referenced evidence matches.
Validate a report model, optionally checking cited local files and hashes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report | Yes | ||
| check_files | No |
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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that validation can optionally check local files and hashes, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain what validation failures look like or how the report is interpreted.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the optional behavior.
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 and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain what a 'report model' is, what format the report parameter expects, or what a successful validation returns. For a tool with two undocumented parameters and no return schema, more context is needed.
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 clarifies check_files as 'optionally checking cited local files and hashes,' but the required 'report' parameter is left opaque—there is no indication whether it is a path, a JSON string, or an identifier. The description only partially covers parameter semantics.
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 and resource: 'Validate a report model.' This distinguishes it from sibling mutators like aa_upsert_claim and from aa_checklist, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it.
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 phrase 'optionally checking cited local files and hashes' implies when the check_files option should be used, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus aa_checklist or aa_finish, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied but not fully spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.