Combine operation results, preflight and readback checks, and optional errors into a single standardized envelope for verification.
Normalize a primitive operation result, preflight/readback checks, and optional error into one envelope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| stage | No | operation_result | |
| checks | No | ||
| result | No | ||
| artifacts | No | ||
| operation | Yes | ||
| preflight | No | ||
| exception_type | No | ||
| require_result | No | ||
| readback_contract | No |
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions normalization of result, checks, and error but does not explain side effects, return value shape, failure modes, or whether it mutates inputs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the main intent. However, its brevity comes at the cost of essential detail, so it is not ideal, but for structure alone it earns a 4.
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?
With 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% description coverage, the description is woefully incomplete. An agent has no idea what the 'envelope' looks like, how to set required inputs, or what the result means. This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.
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 description must compensate for parameter meanings. It vaguely references 'result', 'preflight/readback checks', and 'optional error' but does not explain any of the 10 parameters, their relationships, or defaults. The description adds no value beyond the schema's raw property names.
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 verb ('Normalize') and a clear resource ('a primitive operation result, preflight/readback checks, and optional error'). It conveys the core purpose of combining inputs into a single envelope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, and terms like 'primitive operation result' and 'envelope' are somewhat vague without further 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only defines what it does, not when to invoke it. Sibling tools are numerous, but no relationship or selection criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.