Submit verified findings and evidence for a completed task to initiate independent review.
Submits verified findings and evidence for a completed task to initiate independent review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| summary | Yes | Summary of work completed | |
| task_id | Yes | Task ID | |
| evidence | No | Concrete proofs and verification statements | |
| findings | No | Structured findings dictionary |
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 carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose the meaningful downstream consequence — submission triggers independent review — which is valuable context not in any structured field. But it omits whether submission is final/irreversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens if evidence is rejected, which are significant gaps for a mutation-style tool.
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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the consequence trailing; no filler. It could have used one more short clause (e.g., irreversibility) but nothing present is wasted.
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 with a nested-object parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is only just adequate. It tells the agent the call starts a review but not what the review produces, whether the submission is final, or how evidence is validated — leaving notable gaps an agent would want filled.
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 100%, so both optional and required parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'findings and evidence' loosely maps to two parameters but adds no format, size, or structural detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource ('submits verified findings and evidence') plus the downstream effect ('to initiate independent review'), so the agent knows exactly what the call does. It does not differentiate from siblings, but the siblings (run_simulation, create_task, toggle_localhost) don't overlap in function, so ambiguity is low.
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 'for a completed task' implies a precondition (task must be finished and findings verified), which is useful implied guidance. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement about what to do if review is already underway.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.