Retrieve the alignment acceptance brief so agents know exactly what to verify before marking a podcast editing task done.
Return the alignment acceptance brief: what the agent must check before marking done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "project_path"
-]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but 'Return' at least signals a read-style retrieval and the output schema covers the return shape. It does not state read-only status, whether the brief is cached/computed, or any permission requirements, so it is adequate but thin.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the key content of the brief is stated up front. It borders on under-specification rather than wordiness, but structurally it is efficient.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a one-parameter tool this is nearly sufficient, but the omission of the optional project_path semantics and the lack of any safety/behavior note leave small but real 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?
The single parameter project_path has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it. It does not explain what the path resolves to or what happens when it is omitted (default null), leaving a real ambiguity unaddressed.
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 gives a specific verb ('Return') plus a named resource ('the alignment acceptance brief') and clarifies the content as a checklist of what to verify before marking done. This implicitly distinguishes it from align_done_tool and align_status_tool, though it never names those siblings.
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?
'what the agent must check before marking done' implies the workflow position (read this before calling align_done_tool) but never says so explicitly or names alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.