handle_objectionMap objections like 'async is slow' or 'remote kills culture' to the book's reframe and chapter citation, helping address skepticism with clear counterpoints.
Map a common objection to open/async work ('async is slow', 'remote kills culture') to the book's reframe, with a chapter citation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objection | Yes | The skepticism or pushback to address. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that the result is a reframe plus a chapter citation. It also implicitly constrains scope to 'common' objections, but doesn't say what happens for an unrecognized or unmapped objection.
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?
One sentence with the purpose and the return value front-loaded; no filler or repetition of the title.
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 output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return (a reframe with chapter citation), and annotations cover the safety profile. The only gap is the fallback behavior when an objection isn't in the book's set of reframes.
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 coverage is already 100% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by supplying example objection phrasings ('async is slow', 'remote kills culture') that show the expected input shape.
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 states a specific verb ('Map') and resource ('a common objection to open/async work') and even names the output ('the book's reframe, with a chapter citation'). The two quoted example objections make the intent concrete enough to distinguish it from generic guidance tools like get_guidance or search_principles.
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?
It clearly signals the triggering context (an objection or pushback to address, with concrete examples) but never states when to prefer a sibling such as get_guidance or search_principles, nor any exclusion for objections the book doesn't cover.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.