Executes a single Domain × Task skill pair in standalone mode without requiring an sdd-workspace.yml file, enabling focused architecture task runs outside a configured workspace.
Execute a single Domain x Task skill pair in standalone mode (UC-05) without requiring sdd-workspace.yml.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| out | No | ||
| task | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| domain | No | ||
| out_path | No | ||
| workspace | No | ||
| task_skill | No | ||
| domain_skill | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and non-idempotent, so the agent knows it mutates. The description adds only that no workspace file is needed; it says nothing about what gets written, where output lands, whether skills must be pre-registered, or what happens on failure — significant gaps for an 8-parameter execution tool with no output schema.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding, so it is concise. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency, and the 'UC-05' ticket reference consumes space without adding actionable meaning for the agent.
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 mutation tool with 8 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations beyond generic hints, one sentence is far from sufficient. The agent cannot determine what the required 'query' means, how a domain/task pair is supplied, or what the tool produces.
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% across 8 parameters and the description explains none of them. Names like 'out' vs 'out_path', 'task' vs 'task_skill', and 'domain' vs 'domain_skill' are ambiguous and completely unaddressed, so the agent gets no help distinguishing near-duplicate parameters.
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 verb 'Execute' and the object 'a single Domain x Task skill pair' are stated, and 'standalone mode (UC-05)' scopes it. However, 'Domain x Task skill pair' is internal jargon the agent cannot resolve from the description, and nothing distinguishes it from the many architect_runtime_* tools that also appear to run skills.
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?
'without requiring sdd-workspace.yml' implies the selecting condition: use this when no workspace config exists. But there is no explicit contrast with architect_runtime_plan/start/next or architect_sdd_materialize, so the agent must infer the boundary from a single clause.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.