Manual Acceptance Evidence Template

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with by stating it does not record evidence. The description adds some behavioral context (returning a template and command) but no further details about side effects or limitations.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices clarity and completeness. It is not well-structured to convey the tool's behavior efficiently.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (1 required) and no param descriptions, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain return values despite having an output schema. The agent would not know what data to expect or how to use the template.

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 description provides no explanation for any of the four parameters (item, pr_url, status, reviewer). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no semantic guidance beyond the schema itself, which lists types and enums but no context.

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 'Return a reviewed-evidence template and record command without recording acceptance evidence,' which indicates it provides a template but does not save evidence. However, it is vague and does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like memory.acceptance_packet or memory.acceptance_verify.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.