Execute the full Content Arc loop to convert intent into plan checks, restore steps, and receipt verification for Capital Book objectives.
Run Content Arc full AUREON loop (intent → plan check → restore → receipt verification)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brief | No | User wording — default: Keep about 20% in stable assets — grow the book without abandoning the plan. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.16Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether this executes real state changes, that it is a simulated/demo path (only implied by 'demo' in the name), whether it requires authentication, whether it is idempotent, or what side effects the multi-stage loop produces. For a tool that runs a full intent-to-receipt pipeline, this is a substantial gap.
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 tightly-packed sentence with no filler, and the stage sequence is front-loaded where it is most useful. It is efficient, though the dense jargon slightly reduces readability.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry more weight than it does. It gives the stage flow, which is useful orientation, but omits return shape, side effects, and auth expectations for a pipeline-style demo runner. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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?
There is a single optional parameter (brief) and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the brief or its default wording, so it neither compensates nor detracts — baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb (Run) and a named resource (full AUREON loop), and the parenthetical enumerates the stages intent → plan check → restore → receipt verification, which gives a concrete mental model. However, 'Content Arc' and 'AUREON loop' are internal jargon, and the description never distinguishes this demo runner from the many sibling runners (run_drift_restore_demo, run_receipt_verification_demo) or from the paired aureon_get_full_aureon_loop_flow reader.
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 versus alternatives. The sibling aureon_get_full_aureon_loop_flow appears to be the read-only counterpart, but the description gives no cue about which to pick. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.