Run a read-only adapter report to return a validated plan and audit summary in one call, so agents can verify task execution.
One read-only call returning BOTH a validated plan and an audit summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env | No | ||
| argv | Yes | ||
| repo | No | ||
| topic | Yes | ||
| runner | Yes | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| adapter_id | Yes | ||
| max_audit_entries | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 behavioral disclosure. 'Read-only' is a useful trait, and returning both a validated plan and audit summary is a behavior, but it omits permission requirements, any side effects, rate limits, or error behavior.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but its size is not appropriate for a tool with eight parameters and no schema descriptions. It is concise to the point of under-specification.
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?
The tool has 8 parameters, 5 required, 0% schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema. The description covers only read-only and combined return, leaving an agent without guidance on required inputs or operation, so it is substantially incomplete.
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% for 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It contains no parameter-level information—task_id, runner, topic, adapter_id, argv, env, repo, and max_audit_entries are all undocumented in prose.
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 it is a read-only call returning a validated plan and an audit summary, which distinguishes it from sibling plan_readonly and audit_summary_readonly by combining both outputs. However, it doesn't explicitly name those siblings or clarify what 'validated' entails, so it is clear but not maximally specific.
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?
Implies use when an agent needs both a plan and an audit summary in one read-only call, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to the separate sibling tools. Alternatives are left for the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.