Mark non-actionable symbols, including simple getters and DTO field groups, as reviewed with a note explaining why no conclusion is needed.
결론으로 남길 만한 동작이 없는 심볼(단순 getter·DTO 필드 묶음 등)을 사유와 함께 검토 완료 처리.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | ||
| agent | No | main | |
| unit_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| symbol_ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a state-mutating tool. It states that symbols are marked reviewed-complete and that a reason is attached, but says nothing about reversibility, permissions, whether marked symbols are later excluded from analysis, or what the call returns.
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?
A single compact sentence with the qualifying condition front-loaded and no filler. It could be slightly clearer about the resulting state, but every clause earns its place.
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?
For a 5-parameter mutation tool with zero schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should explain the identifiers, what happens to marked symbols downstream, and the effect of the operation.
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 parameters. The description hints at the required reason (note) and that symbols are plural, but project_id, unit_id, and agent are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (mark) and resource (symbols) with a clear qualifying condition (symbols with no capture-worthy behavior such as getters or DTO field bundles) and the resulting state (reviewed-complete). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like oss_unknown_record or oss_finding_record, which also record judgments, so it stops short of 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?
The description implies when to use it by describing the kind of symbol it targets (simple getters, DTO bundles), which is a real usage condition. But it offers no explicit when-not guidance and never names an alternative tool for symbols that DO have behavior worth capturing, leaving the boundary with the sibling record/review tools implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.