Read approved text inputs to stage validated artifacts, defining output paths and formats for approval-gated creation.
Read explicitly approved text inputs and stage new validated artifacts in memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | ||
| outputs | Yes | ||
| profile | Yes | ||
| input_paths | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already assert readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this by saying it reads inputs and stages artifacts "in memory." It adds the qualifiers "explicitly approved" and "validated," but doesn't explain what validation entails, whether previous staged artifacts are replaced, or whether any in-memory state is visible to other tools.
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 11-word sentence with no filler or redundant clauses. It is compact and front-loads the read action, though the terse style sacrifices detail in a way that hurts overall clarity.
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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, this description is inadequate. It does not explain the role of the required task/profile parameters, the shape of outputs, how input_paths relates to "approved text inputs," or what the prepared artifact looks like when subsequently previewed or committed.
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?
Input schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for a 4-parameter tool. It offers only vague conceptual hints: "text inputs" could map to input_paths and "artifacts" to outputs, but task and profile are entirely unexplained, and no formats, defaults, or constraints are mentioned.
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?
"Read explicitly approved text inputs and stage new validated artifacts in memory" clearly identifies the action (read + stage) and the resource (text inputs/artifacts). The phrase "in memory" helps distinguish from persistent siblings like commit_artifact, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus preview_artifact, commit_artifact, or start_task. The only implicit signal is "explicitly approved" and "in memory," which suggests a pre-commit preparation step, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.