Get a revision-bound verification receipt before applying a learned lesson. Reuse an execution_id for all observers of the same test run; this does not execute the fix.
Get a revision-bound verification receipt before applying a lesson. Reuse one execution_id for all observers of the same test/run. Does not execute the fix or imply verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| environment | Yes | ||
| execution_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond that by clarifying that no fix is executed and no verification is implied. It also explains the intended execution_id reuse pattern, which helps agents understand the operation's side-effect profile.
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?
Three tightly packed sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage guidance, and a non-effect clarification. The key scoping phrase is front-loaded and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 description covers the tool's purpose and safety profile well, and the annotations handle read-only/idempotent expectations. However, it leaves the meaning of 'id' and 'environment' undefined, and with no output schema it does not describe what the receipt contains or how it should be interpreted.
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 carry the burden of explaining parameters. It only clarifies execution_id reuse; 'id' and 'environment' are left entirely unexplained, including the nested environment object's fields. This is a significant gap for a tool with three required parameters.
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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('revision-bound verification receipt'), and states that it occurs 'before applying a lesson.' It is not a tautology and conveys a distinct purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'record' or 'inspect.'
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 gives concrete usage context: use it before applying a lesson, reuse one execution_id across observers, and note that it does not execute the fix or imply verification. It provides helpful boundaries but does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.