Initializes a JSON Lines evidence ledger file with a header; requires work title and type, with optional notes and description.
Create a ledger file (JSON Lines) with a header; work needs title and type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| work | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 mentions the file format and a header, which is useful, but says nothing about overwrite behavior, file existence handling, permissions, or failure modes for a mutation tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The semicolon cleanly separates the core action from the nested requirement, making it easy to parse.
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 a nested object, an output schema, and no annotations, so the description should do more to explain creation semantics. It covers the file format and the required nested fields, which are key, but leaves out overwrite behavior, path interpretation, and usage context.
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 nested 'work' object has additionalProperties with no property definitions, so the description's note that 'work' needs 'title' and 'type' adds critical meaning beyond the schema. However, the 'path', 'notes', and 'description' parameters remain unexplained.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: creating a ledger file in JSON Lines format with a header. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like validate_ledger or export_ledger, but the creation action is distinct enough to be identifiable.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_ledger or export_ledger. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.