Run independent verification, record W3C PROV-DM EvidenceUnit audit evidence, or trigger Planarian rollback for quality-gate validation and safe recovery.
Run independent verification oracle, record W3C PROV-DM EvidenceUnit, or trigger Planarian rollback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cmd | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 mentions a rollback, which implies a potentially destructive operation, but gives no detail on permissions, reversibility, side effects, or what running the verification oracle entails.
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 compact sentence, so it is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The three alternatives are front-loaded without enough structure to clarify the command interface.
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 command-dispatch tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented cmd semantics, the description is missing critical details about parameter values, expected outcomes, and rollback consequences. It names operations but does not provide enough context for reliable invocation.
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?
The single required parameter 'cmd' has 0% schema description coverage and no explanation in the description. The three listed actions may map to cmd values, but the description never states accepted values, format, or how cmd selects behavior.
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 three possible actions—running a verification oracle, recording an EvidenceUnit, and triggering a rollback—but does not make clear whether this is one multi-action dispatch tool or which primary purpose it serves. It gives specific verbs and resources, but the alternatives blur the tool's core identity and do not distinguish it from siblings like iso9000_get_audit_chain or iso9000_run_capa.
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 lists possible operations but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not state prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.