Records a proposed function or class name with evidence, confidence, and a reusable signature so labels can be reviewed and ported to later game builds.
Record a proposed name with its evidence. Creates a ket node (edge: proposes) under the build node and stores a signature so the label can be ported to later builds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addr | Yes | ||
| kind | No | function | |
| name | Yes | ||
| agent | No | claude | |
| build | No | ||
| rationale | Yes | ||
| confidence | Yes |
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. It discloses real behavioral traits beyond the name: it creates a ket node, adds a 'proposes' edge under the build node, and stores a signature for portability to later builds. However, it omits whether the operation is idempotent, whether it requires an existing build, error behavior, or the return value.
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?
Two front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though the domain jargon means it is terse at the cost of clarity rather than because nothing more needs saying.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the meaning of the parameters, the preconditions for the build node, or the resulting data shape, leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.
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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implies that 'rationale' is the evidence and that confidence is stored, but the meaning of addr, kind, agent, and build is entirely undocumented in both structured and unstructured text. Only a weak hint is provided for the required fields.
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 action and object: "Record a proposed name with its evidence." It is distinguishable from siblings like review_label or make_signature, though no explicit sibling differentiation is provided. The purpose is clear but bound to an undocumented domain vocabulary (ket node, build node).
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, nor when not to. The relation to review_label (likely the human review step) is left to inference. An agent has no way to know the workflow position of this tool without guessing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.