Validate a candidate ID to confirm its authenticity and retrieve the original action payload for safe use in Aside workflows.
Validate a supplied candidate ID and return its original action payload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| choice_id | Yes | ||
| candidates | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that validation returns an action payload, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, error handling, or whether validation changes 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?
A single sentence that is grammatically tight, front-loads the verb, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for a tool with only two required parameters and an output schema.
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 tool is low in complexity and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits parameter semantics and usage guidance, leaving an agent to infer how candidates and choice_id should be supplied and when this should be called over sibling tools.
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% for both required parameters. The description only hints that choice_id is a 'candidate ID' and says nothing about what candidates contains or how it relates to choice_id.
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 action ('Validate') and a clear resource ('supplied candidate ID') plus the result ('return its original action payload'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like jev_choose or jev_step, but the core function is clear.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus jev_choose, jev_step, or jev_system_one. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.