Selects an authorized agent for classified code changes by matching capabilities and permissions, so only permitted agents process the specified files.
Select an authorized agent for a classified change based on capabilities and permissions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | No | files to process |
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, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that selection is gated on capabilities and permissions, which hints at an authorization step, but it never says what happens when no agent qualifies, whether a decision is recorded (cf. mind_receipts), or what the tool returns.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is tight, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of missing routing detail rather than being fully earned.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain what a selection yields (agent identifier, permission scope, why an agent was chosen) and how the result is consumed downstream. It also omits selection criteria in any concrete terms, leaving the core contract of the tool underspecified.
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?
Only one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("files to process"), so the schema carries the documented burden and baseline 3 applies. The description does not clarify whether the files are the "classified change" being routed or inputs the selected agent will consume, leaving the parameter's role ambiguous despite coverage.
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?
Names a specific verb ("Select") and object ("authorized agent"), which is more than a restatement of the name. But "classified change" is unexplained jargon and the description never connects it to the only parameter (files), nor does it distinguish this tool from siblings like route, gate, or mind_direct, which plausibly overlap.
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 statement of when to use this instead of route, gate, mind_direct, mind_plan, or mind_classify. Given the crowded mind_* family, an agent has no basis in the description for choosing this tool over a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.