Creates a compressed U-Shaped Context Baton file from current project and git/session state so AI coding agents can hand off goals and context within a token budget.
Creates a compressed U-Shaped Context Baton (.vicem/BATON.md) from the current project and git/session state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | Primary engineering goal | |
| targetAgent | No | Target agent identifier (e.g., codex, claude, ide) | |
| budgetTokens | No | Token budget (default: 4000) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful behavioral facts the schema does not: the tool writes a file to a fixed path (.vicem/BATON.md) and derives content from current project plus git/session state. It omits critical mutation behavior — whether an existing BATON.md is overwritten, whether a backup exists, and what 'compressed' means operationally.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the artifact path and derivation source come early. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the guidance gaps noted elsewhere rather than being a fault of structure.
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 zero-required-parameter file-writing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is produced but not what the baton is for downstream (vicem_rehydrate) or what happens on a repeat call. Adequate minimum, with a real gap around idempotency and lifecycle.
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 100%, including the 4000-token default for budgetTokens, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no further semantics about how goal or targetAgent influence the emitted baton, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and artifact: creates a compressed U-Shaped Context Baton written to .vicem/BATON.md from the current project and git/session state. An agent can tell this is the write-side counterpart to vicem_read_baton from the name alone, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with the read/rehydrate/guard siblings.
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 when-to-use guidance, no precondition (e.g., run at end of session, before handing off), and no mention of the alternatives vicem_rehydrate or vicem_read_baton. The agent must infer the handoff workflow entirely from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.