Creates a constrained evidence and routing pack for the next retry from a session path, helping agents prepare CAD-to-GIS conversion iteration context.
Create the constrained evidence/routing pack for the next retry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Create' implies persistent state or file output, but the description never says what is written, where, whether it overwrites existing artifacts, or whether it requires a prior validated iteration — all critical for a preparation step.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being genuinely concise.
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?
An output schema exists so return values are covered, but with zero annotations, an undocumented required parameter, and no workflow context in a crowded sibling set, the definition leaves the agent without enough information to call this correctly.
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 single parameter session_path has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The agent gets no indication of expected format (filesystem path? session identifier?) or what a valid session_path points to.
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 verb 'Create' is clear, but the resource is opaque domain jargon ('constrained evidence/routing pack') that an agent cannot decode without prior knowledge of the workflow. It makes no attempt to distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as inspect_iteration, evaluate_iteration_candidate, or record_iteration_feedback.
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 'for the next retry' hints at timing, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus siblings like start_feedback_iteration or inspect_iteration, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage must be inferred entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.