Collect weak topics from all application retro files in a job-hunting campaign, with optional target-role and abandoned-application filters, to reveal recurring gaps.
Aggregate weak topics across all application retro files for a campaign
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign | Yes | Campaign name (e.g. "default") | |
| targetRole | No | Filter by target role slug | |
| includeAbandoned | No | Include abandoned applications |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states what is aggregated. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how costly scanning all retro files is, or what form the aggregated result takes. Only the bare 'aggregate' semantics are inferable.
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 action and scope come first. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves little room for the context the tool otherwise lacks.
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?
Parameters are fully documented by the schema and there is no output schema to explain, so the remaining need is behavioral context. For a tool that scans every retro file in a campaign, the description says nothing about result shape, ordering, or cost, leaving a modest but real gap.
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 the schema already documents campaign, targetRole, and includeAbandoned. The description reiterates the campaign scoping but adds no semantics for the role filter or abandoned-inclusion behavior. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 names a specific verb (aggregate), the derived resource (weak topics), and the source scope (all application retro files for a campaign). This distinguishes it from read_retro and append_retro, which operate on a single retro, without explicitly naming them.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus read_retro or post_mortem, no stated prerequisites, and no exclusions. The scope phrase implies batch use but the agent must infer when aggregation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.