Run repeated measure-plan-apply-verify cycles to adjust low-end mixes toward a target goal, either lowend or club_ready, until the round cap is reached.
The loop: measure, plan, apply, verify, repeat until the goal is met or the policy's round cap. goal: "lowend" or "club_ready". Runs as a job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | lowend | |
| track | No | ||
| rounds | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions 'Runs as a job' (implying asynchronous execution) and the termination condition, but omits side effects, state changes, reversibility, error handling, or progress monitoring. This is insufficient for a loop tool that likely modifies project state.
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 concise—two sentences with no filler. The core loop concept is front-loaded, and the goal values are stated efficiently. It earns high marks for economy, though the brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions.
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 that orchestrates a multi-step loop with three parameters, the description is notably incomplete. It lacks explanations for 'track' and 'rounds', does not clarify the meaning of goal values, and provides no guidance on monitoring or interpreting results. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value ambiguity but not the missing parameter semantics.
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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only mentions 'goal' with possible values, but does not explain what 'lowend' or 'club_ready' mean, nor does it address 'track' or 'rounds' at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, leaving most parameters ambiguous.
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 tool's function: it runs a loop of measure, plan, apply, verify until the goal is met or the round cap. It specifies valid goal values ('lowend' or 'club_ready'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform individual steps. This is a specific verb-resource statement.
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 implies usage as the high-level orchestration loop, contrasting with sibling tools like measure, plan, apply, verify. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus calling those steps individually, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implicit, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.