Generate a role-aware agent brief from a query and agent role, returning the brief path and route payload for local repository context.
Write a role-aware MIMRY agent brief and return its path plus route payload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | ||
| agent | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Write' and returns 'path plus route payload', which implies a filesystem mutation, but does not disclose whether this creates or overwrites files, required permissions, what the route payload contains, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a write tool with zero annotations, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Write a role-aware MIMRY agent brief') and mentions the return shape. No wasted words, though it's arguably too terse given the tool's complexity.
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 needn't be explained. But with 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations on a write operation, and no usage guidance among 21 siblings, the description is far too thin. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without trial and error.
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% — none of the 4 parameters (root, agent, limit, query) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter meaning either: it doesn't explain that 'query' selects content, 'agent' defines the role perspective, 'limit' caps results, or what 'root' scopes. Complete failure to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 verb and resource ('Write a role-aware MIMRY agent brief') and mentions its output ('return its path plus route payload'). However, 'MIMRY agent brief' is domain-specific jargon that doesn't clarify its distinction from the many sibling mimry_* tools (mimry_route, mimry_plan_digest, mimry_context). It's somewhat clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mimry_plan_digest (also a digest-like tool) or mimry_context. There are no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no routing hints despite 21 sibling tools. Implied usage only from the name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.