Compute deterministic claim resolution against evidence and return the complete next-step packet to advance audit-ready deep research.
Compute deterministic claim resolution and return a complete next-step packet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| research_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| agent_rules | No | ||
| next_action | No | ||
| quality_gate | No | ||
| protocol_version | No | 7.2 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the behavioral trait of determinism and says a next-step packet is returned, but it does not disclose whether the tool mutates state, whether prior claim registration is required, or any other side effects. Calling this tool could be read-only or could change claim status; the agent cannot tell.
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 with no filler, but it is under-specified and uses jargon ('complete next-step packet') without elaboration. It is concise but not well-structured for decision-making.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description still leaves critical context unclear: when this tool should run relative to register_claims, judge_evidence, or finalize_research, and what state it expects. For a workflow tool with no annotations and minimal parameter guidance, this is not complete enough.
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 only parameter, research_id, has no schema description (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain what it refers to, how to obtain it, or any constraints. The name and title give minimal context, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema.
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 names a specific operation—'compute deterministic claim resolution'—and an output, but it does not clarify what 'claim resolution' entails or how this differs from sibling tools like judge_evidence, review_claim_tensions, or revise_claim. It is a clear high-level purpose but lacks sibling differentiation.
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 guidance on when to call assess_claims versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no workflow context. The sibling tool names imply distinct roles in a research pipeline, but the description gives the agent no help choosing among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.