Generate a Markdown report of social clip candidates from a podcast project, helping producers select moments to promote on social media.
Return a Markdown listing of social clip candidates.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output format (Markdown) and the word "Return" implies a read-only operation, but it does not state permissions, side effects, whether any files are written, or other operational constraints. Partial credit for the implied read-only nature, but important behavior remains undocumented.
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 filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple report tool and every word contributes to stating the operation.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, which helps. However, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the definition remains incomplete for routing against list_social_clips_tool and for explaining how project_path affects the report.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the project_path parameter. Its meaning, expected format, and effect on the report are left entirely to the schema title and default value, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ("Return") and resource ("Markdown listing of social clip candidates"). The purpose is clear, but the description does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling list_social_clips_tool or explain what makes it a "report" rather than a plain list.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_social_clips_tool, propose_social_clips_tool, approve_social_clips_tool, or export_social_clips_tool. No prerequisites or context are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.