Return a readable dossier separating approved conclusions, proposals, contradictions, sources, and research gaps to turn property-history questions into reviewable evidence.
Return a readable dossier separating approved conclusions, proposals, contradictions, sources and research gaps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing how the output is organized (it separates approved conclusions from proposals and flags contradictions), which is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about permissions, size, or whether it generates fresh content.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead and the section enumeration follows. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with safety already covered by annotations and no output schema, the description's content breakdown effectively summarizes what is returned. It is nearly complete, missing only scoping/format details.
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 schema does not document projectId. The description does not compensate, but the single required parameter is a self-evident project identifier with obvious semantics, so the gap is minor rather than severe.
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?
Specific verb ('Return') plus a well-defined resource ('readable dossier') and an enumeration of its content sections (approved conclusions, proposals, contradictions, sources, research gaps). It is clear what the tool produces, but it never differentiates itself from overlapping siblings such as case_overview or project_context.
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?
There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus project_context, case_overview, or project_export, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.