Verify a decision pack against its graph by checking source binding, content addresses, and all graph references to catch broken or mismatched links before delivery.
Verify source binding, content addresses, and all graph references.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| graph_path | Yes | ||
| decision_pack_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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It lists what is checked but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens on validation failure, whether it mutates any state, or what kind of result to expect.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a terse definition, though the extreme brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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 two required parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema explanation needed, the description is under-specified. An agent lacks enough context on usage, parameter meaning, and behavioral guarantees to invoke the tool confidently.
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 0% for the two required parameters (graph_path and decision_pack_path), and the description makes no mention of them. The agent receives no added meaning about what these paths should point to or how they are used.
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 verb ('Verify') and enumerates the verification targets (source binding, content addresses, graph references), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly name the 'decision pack' resource or distinguish it from sibling validators like validate_project or validate_scene_interpretation_plan.
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 use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., after create_decision_pack), and no exclusion conditions. The implied lifecycle context is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.