Batch-validate contractor invoices against framework contract Article 4, then generate a local review dashboard and Dutch draft letters for disputed invoices.
Check the batch, write output//review.html (Sanne's one-stop page), review-list.md and one Dutch letter per disputed invoice (letters/.CONCEPT.txt until she decides).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| month | No | ||
| folder | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the write side effects well: it creates a review HTML page, a markdown list, and per-invoice letter files at specific paths. However, it says nothing about overwrite behavior, whether existing files are replaced, whether anything is actually sent to customers, or cost/time of running over a whole batch.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and then the deliverables, with parentheticals used to explain the HTML page's purpose and the .CONCEPT.txt drafting convention. Dense but every clause carries information; only the slightly tangled grammar costs a point.
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 batch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover the return artifacts (the files written), which is the most important missing piece. It falls short on the two optional parameters and on safety/overwrite semantics, which an agent needs before invoking it on real data.
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 both parameters (month, folder) are nullable with no titles beyond 'Month'/'Folder'. The description never mentions either parameter, so an agent cannot tell whether month scopes the billing period or that folder selects the input batch, nor that omitting both means 'all'.
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 action (check the batch) and enumerates concrete artifacts produced: output/<run>/review.html, review-list.md, and one Dutch letter per disputed invoice. The 'batch' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the single-invoice sibling check_invoice, though it never says so outright.
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 explicit statement of when to run this versus check_invoice or check_invoice-level workflows, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only hint is the word 'batch' and the aside 'until she decides', which implies a draft-review workflow but leaves the agent to infer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.