Append each build-test-verify cycle as JSONL evidence to track fix attempts, test results, and root causes in mobile development loops.
[workspace write][risk:write] Append one build-test-verify loop iteration as JSONL evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fix | No | ||
| goal | Yes | ||
| build | No | ||
| device | No | ||
| retest | No | ||
| failure | No | ||
| artifacts | No | ||
| iteration | Yes | ||
| root_cause | No | ||
| test_result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-alpha.14Does 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 disclose the side effect with '[workspace write][risk:write]' and the append semantics via 'Append ... as JSONL evidence'. However, it does not explain what happens on repeated calls, where the evidence is written, or whether prior iterations are preserved.
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 a single front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. The risk and workspace tags appear first, and the core action is stated immediately. No filler or redundant schema repetition is present.
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 write tool with 10 parameters, 3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, this one-line description is far from complete. An agent cannot tell what values to supply, what the file path is, what a valid iteration looks like, or what the tool returns.
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% across 10 parameters, and the description provides no field-level semantics. The phrase 'build-test-verify loop iteration' gives a conceptual hint about goal, build, and test_result, but it does not compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in either the schema or the description.
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 states a specific verb ('Append'), a specific resource ('one build-test-verify loop iteration'), and the output format ('JSONL evidence'). It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from related siblings such as loop.read_iterations, loop.generate_report, or flow.record_test_run.
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 phrase 'build-test-verify loop iteration' implies this is meant to be called during a build-test-verify loop to log evidence, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like flow.record_checkpoint or verify.collect_evidence. No exclusions or routing conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.