Creates a new evidence bundle for a task and workspace path, initializing it with in_progress status to begin capturing tamper-evident evidence.
Creates a new evidence bundle for a task and workspace with in_progress status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | The task or objective being addressed by the agent. | |
| metadata | No | Optional key-value metadata. | |
| workspacePath | Yes | Path to the workspace root directory. |
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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the resulting status (in_progress), but omits the return value (presumably a bundle identifier needed by downstream calls), duplicate/conflict behavior, and any permission requirements.
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?
A single sentence with zero filler, and the key facts (resource, scope, resulting status) are front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the title or wasted.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what a successful call returns (e.g., the new bundle's identifier) since the agent needs it for add_assertion, verify_evidence_bundle, and other siblings. That information is entirely absent, as is any error/failure behavior.
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 100%, so all three parameters (task, workspacePath, metadata) are already documented. The description adds only the implicit link between task/workspace and the created bundle, and says nothing about the nested metadata object beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (create -> evidence bundle) plus the initial lifecycle state, so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like verify_evidence_bundle or add_assertion, but the create-vs-verify distinction is unambiguous from the verb.
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 says nothing about when to call this versus the sibling tools: no mention that it is the entry point before add_assertion/record_command_result, no prerequisite that a task and workspace must already exist, and no guidance on what to do if a bundle already exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.