Append a project event, lesson, and link to TIMELINE.md to record milestones, project closures, or new kit generation for later review.
Ghi 1 dòng vào TIMELINE.md (append-only): dự án + sự kiện + bài học/sản phẩm + link. Dùng khi: đóng dự án, sinh kit mới, rút bài học, mốc quan trọng.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link | No | ||
| event | Yes | ||
| lesson | No | ||
| project | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the append-only, additive nature of the write, which tells the agent it won't overwrite history. It does not mention permissions, whether the file is created if absent, or failure behavior.
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?
Two tight lines: the action and its append-only constraint come first, then the usage triggers. No filler, nothing redundant with structured fields.
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 return values need no explanation, and the append-only semantics plus triggers cover the essentials for a simple logging tool. Minor gap: where TIMELINE.md lives and whether a missing file is created.
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 compensate. It enumerates all four parameters (project, event, lesson/product, link), matching the schema one-to-one, but adds no format, length, or required-vs-optional guidance beyond the names.
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 (write/ghi), a precise resource (TIMELINE.md) and scope (append-only), plus the payload fields. An agent immediately knows it appends a log line. No explicit sibling differentiation, but the resource is unlike any sibling here.
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?
"Dùng khi" enumerates four concrete trigger situations: closing a project, generating a new kit, capturing a lesson, hitting a milestone. This is clear context for when to call it, though it names no alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.