Run implementation after verifying synthesis and project readiness, with parallel jobs.
Launch implementation only after project and synthesis prerequisites pass.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobs | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| error_code | Yes | ||
| state_changed | Yes | ||
| recommended_actions | 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 provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'launch', implying a process start, but does not describe side effects, blocking behavior, output format, or whether it modifies state. The precondition hint is helpful but insufficient for an agent to understand what happens when the tool runs.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and the critical precondition. It is appropriately short, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
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 the tool's role in a pipeline and the existence of siblings like check_build_readiness and run_synthesis, the description does not provide enough context. It does not explain how to verify the prerequisites, what the implementation stage entails, or how it relates to neighboring tools. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but the operational context is incomplete.
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 'jobs' has schema coverage of 0% and the description does not mention it at all. The agent is left to infer that it controls parallelism based only on the default value of 4. The description fails to explain the parameter's purpose or valid values.
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 'launch' and resource 'implementation', and includes a precondition. It is distinguishable from siblings like run_synthesis and generate_bitstream because it targets the implementation stage. However, it does not explicitly define what 'implementation' produces, which slightly reduces clarity.
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 gives a clear precondition: 'only after project and synthesis prerequisites pass'. This implies usage timing but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool. It could be improved by referencing sibling tools like run_synthesis or check_build_readiness, but the prerequisite guidance is useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.