Submit research evidence as a signed packet containing claims, citations, and methodology for review and verification.
[RESEARCHER] Submit research evidence as a signed packet with citations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claims | Yes | Evidence claims with citations | |
| task_id | Yes | Task ID | |
| methodology | Yes | How you gathered this evidence |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / claims / items / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a 'signed packet' but does not explain what signing entails, whether submission is final/immutable, what permissions are needed, or what the result/response will be.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to stating the tool's action and key qualifier ('signed packet', 'with citations').
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 three required parameters, a nested claims array, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks context about the submission lifecycle, prerequisites, relationship to evidence review/handoff, or what happens after submission.
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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the 'citations' reference is already represented in the claims schema.
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 clearly states the verb 'Submit' and the resource 'research evidence as a signed packet with citations,' which is specific and understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like review_evidence or handoff_evidence, so it misses the top score.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as review_evidence, handoff_evidence, or get_evidence. There are no explicit usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.