Retrieve the next internal validation action for company-network, ensuring simulated evidence is never claimed as real.
Read the next company-network validation action; it never claims simulated evidence is real.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The 'never claims simulated evidence is real' clause adds a behavioral guarantee beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which is genuinely useful context. However, it is cryptic and doesn't explain what the returned action looks like, whether it mutates state, or how validation progresses.
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 no waste. Structure is fine, though the trailing honesty clause is oddly placed rather than front-loaded.
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?
No output schema and no parameters, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining what the tool returns and how it fits the validation workflow. The opaque honesty clause and absent return-value description leave significant gaps for an agent trying to use it.
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?
Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. No param info is needed and none is missing.
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 verb (Read) and resource (next company-network validation action), so purpose is discernible but the domain jargon 'internal validation' / 'company-network validation action' is vague. It does not clearly distinguish from siblings like workflow_validate_pod_roster or workflow_submit_decision.
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?
No indication of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no sequencing context in a workflow that clearly has validation stages. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.