Validate an advance request against state guard rules without altering state. Preview prerequisite and mastery conditions to confirm eligibility before proceeding.
Dry-run the State Guard for an advance request without changing state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | No | ||
| unit_tag | No | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| manual_override | No | ||
| expected_state_version | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the key non-mutating behavior ('without changing state'), which is essential. However, it does not disclose what the dry-run actually evaluates, what it returns, or whether it performs any validation-related side effects. Minimal but not misleading.
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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and the key safety property ('without changing state'). Every word 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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It explains the top-level intent but leaves the agent without enough context about parameter roles, return behavior, or how this interacts with the state guard. Significant gaps remain.
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 coverage is 0% and the description provides no information about any of the five parameters. session_id, node_id, unit_tag, manual_override, and expected_state_version are all left unexplained, so an agent cannot infer how to set them correctly from either the schema or the description.
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 ('dry-run') and resource ('State Guard for an advance request') and explicitly notes that no state is changed, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like advance_unit. It would be a 5 if it named the alternative directly or clarified the 'State Guard' jargon, but the core purpose is clear.
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 'without changing state' phrase implies this is the safe/preflight variant of advance_unit, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus advance_unit or any related sibling. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.