Propose a falsifiable claim as a trace check by defining expected symbols per step; null means any. Enables black-box behavior verification.
State a falsifiable claim as a trace check (expect: symbol per step, null = any).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| layer | No | unknown | |
| expect | Yes | ||
| inputs | Yes | ||
| origin | No | observed | |
| feature | Yes | ||
| statement | Yes | ||
| strictness | No | must |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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. It does not disclose whether proposing persists a claim, whether it is validated against rules, or what happens afterward (though an output schema exists, the mutation/profile behavior is unstated). The only behavioral hint is the 'null = any' note on expect.
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 waste, but for a complex 8-parameter tool it is too terse, pushing semantics into a dense parenthetical rather than structuring useful guidance.
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?
Given 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the definition is far from complete. An output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but the input semantics and behavioral profile are largely missing for a tool this complex.
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 (5 required), and the description explains only 'expect' (symbol per step, null = any). It says nothing about kind, feature, statement, inputs, layer, origin, or strictness, leaving the majority of parameters undocumented.
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 verb ('State') and a resource ('a falsifiable claim'), plus a parenthetical about 'expect'. However, it does not clarify what a 'claim' or 'trace check' actually is, and offers no differentiation from the sibling falsify_claim (the natural counterpart to a propose). An agent can guess the general idea but not the precise purpose.
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 indication of when to use this versus falsify_claim or list_claims, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer the workflow entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.