Record a completion receipt in the append-only ledger after workspace work finishes, capturing actor, object, outcome, files, and up to three metrics.
一个工作区干完活后的回执（谁、什么、结果、文件、≤3 个数字）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| actor | Yes | ||
| job_id | No | ||
| metrics | No | ||
| outcome | No | ||
| object_id | No | ||
| injectable | No |
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It says the tool creates a receipt and limits numeric metrics to three, but it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, idempotency, or what the tool returns.
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 with no filler, and the field list is front-loaded in parentheses. It is under-specified for an 8-parameter tool, but it is structurally efficient rather than verbose.
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?
Given 8 parameters, a nested metrics object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It gives only a high-level receipt concept and does not explain parameter behavior, usage, or output expectations.
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?
With 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate. It loosely maps several fields (who, what, result, file, numbers) but omits job_id, injectable, object_id, and type distinctions, leaving many parameters undocumented.
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 that the tool produces a receipt after work in a workspace and lists the kinds of content it captures (who, what, result, file, up to three numbers). It does not use a clear action verb, and it never distinguishes this tool from siblings like situation_report or recent_events.
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 phrase 'after finishing work in a workspace' implies a usage condition, so some context is present. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling reporting tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.