Check KOMPAS document readiness before low-level CAD operations by validating required context, active state, tree, items, type, and extensions to prevent errors.
Check KOMPAS session/document readiness before running a low-level operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| min_items | No | ||
| document_id | No | ||
| require_tree | No | ||
| require_items | No | ||
| min_tree_nodes | No | ||
| expected_extensions | No | ||
| expected_document_type | No | ||
| require_active_document | 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'check readiness' with no mention of side effects, permissions, failure behavior, or what happens if checks fail. For a tool that presumably validates preconditions, this is a significant gap; an agent cannot anticipate the outcome or side effects.
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 that states the core purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, given the parameter complexity and lack of schema coverage, the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.
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?
The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description provides no context on what readiness conditions are checked, what the return value looks like, or how results map to parameters. It is entirely inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret this tool.
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% and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., min_items, require_tree, expected_extensions). The names give hints but not semantics—what counts as an 'item', what 'tree' refers to, how expected_extensions is matched. With zero coverage, the description must compensate but offers nothing.
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 action (check) on a specific resource (KOMPAS session/document readiness) and a purpose (before running a low-level operation). It is clear but somewhat vague about what 'readiness' entails. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar check tools like smoke_check_session or get_session_state, but the name and 'preflight' imply a pre-operation gate.
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 description provides some usage context ('before running a low-level operation') but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. With many sibling tools that also check state (smoke_check_session, get_active_document_state), there is no guidance on when to choose this one over them. The condition is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.