Save a reasoning summary with an ordered route, or refresh and extend existing trails while exposing summary staleness.
Save a reasoning summary and ordered route; explicitly refresh or extend an existing trail and expose summary staleness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| state | Yes | ||
| issues | Yes | ||
| coverage | No | ||
| replayed | Yes | ||
| operation | Yes | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| api_version | Yes | ||
| continuation | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation declares readOnlyHint=false, and the description is consistent by describing save, refresh, and extend operations. It adds useful context about summary staleness being exposed, but does not disclose concurrency behavior, required permissions, or what happens to existing route data.
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 definition is a single dense sentence with the primary save behavior front-loaded. It is efficient, though the semicolon-separated action summary is somewhat compressed.
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?
The tool has a complex oneOf schema and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, for a mutation tool with save/refresh/extend variants, the description is minimal about revision checks, replay keys, and the practical meaning of summary staleness.
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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters such as expected_revision and request_id. The description adds only action-level context and does not explain route structure, NodeRef resolution, or revision semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 resource and multiple operations: saving a reasoning summary plus ordered route, and refreshing or extending an existing trail. It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from any of the many sibling tools.
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?
It implies usage through the save/refresh/extend actions and says refresh or extend applies to an existing trail. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings and no when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.