Independently review critical open-source analysis claims with a reviewer different from the author, record confirmed/rejected verdicts and notes, and flag rejected claims as unverified.
important/critical 결론의 독립 검토. 작성자와 다른 reviewer id 여야 함. rejected 면 미확인 생성.
Args: verdict: confirmed / rejected
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | ||
| verdict | Yes | ||
| claim_id | Yes | ||
| reviewer | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two non-obvious traits: reviewer must differ from the author, and a 'rejected' verdict creates an unconfirmed record (a side effect). It is silent on what 'confirmed' does, whether the review mutates the claim state, permissions, or idempotency, which is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.
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?
Very short and front-loaded: the purpose, the reviewer constraint, and the rejection side effect come before the Args block. The terse phrasing borders on cryptic but no sentence is wasted.
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?
A 5-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more: the meaning of 'note', what 'confirmed' triggers, and what the call returns are all unstated. The description covers only the rejection branch and one precondition.
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% across 5 required parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the verdict values (confirmed/rejected) and adds a constraint on reviewer, but note, claim_id, and project_id receive no explanation at all, leaving most parameters undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb+object: independent review of important/critical conclusions (claims). An agent can tell it is a review/decision operation distinct from record/withdraw/pending siblings. It does not explicitly name any sibling for differentiation, keeping it below a 5.
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?
'important/critical 결론' implies the scope in which this tool applies, and the reviewer-id constraint is stated. However, there is no when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as oss_claim_withdraw or oss_claims_pending, and no statement of prerequisites beyond the reviewer constraint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.