Runs the LAND scar engine on a prompt, injects context, and blocks done-claims lacking live proof to prevent file existence from faking completed work.
Run the LAND scar engine on a user prompt. Inject on = file-exists side door blocked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | No | ||
| inject | No | Default true. LAND inject this turn. | |
| prompt | Yes | ||
| file_exists | No | ||
| live_verified | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only hints that injection is a side effect ('Inject on... side door blocked') without stating permissions, reversibility, or side effects on the user prompt. The phrase 'side door blocked' implies a gating condition but is too cryptic to act on.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler and the action front-loaded. The trade-off is that the second sentence is compressed to the point of being unparseable, so brevity comes at the cost of comprehension.
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?
A five-parameter tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations needs a description that explains inputs and effects; this one leaves most parameters and the entire return/behavior model unexplained. Only the inject/file_exists interaction is gestured at.
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 only 20% (just 'inject'), so the description must compensate, and it partially touches the inject/file_exists relationship. However, it adds nothing for required 'prompt' or for 'claim' and 'live_verified', leaving three parameters undocumented in both places.
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?
It gives a verb ('Run') and a named resource ('LAND scar engine'), but the resource is undefined jargon that an agent cannot decode, and the second sentence ('Inject on = file-exists side door blocked') is telegraphic and does not clarify what the tool actually produces or decides. Nothing here distinguishes 'decide' from siblings land_inject, no_fake_done, or trust_freeze.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The fragment about inject/file_exists is parameter behavior, not usage guidance, so an agent has no routing information at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.