Write pipeline handoff state (e.g., screening report) for a project to document progress and facilitate handoff.
Write a piece of pipeline handoff state (e.g. a screening report) for a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | ||
| project_dir | Yes | ||
| resource_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) are present, and the description only says 'Write' without explaining side effects, overwrite behavior, or whether existing files are replaced. The behavioral implications are implicit at best.
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 that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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 description lacks important context such as return value, error behavior, whether the resource is created or updated, or how it differs from similar tools. Given the moderate complexity and presence of sibling tools, more detail would be needed for confident selection and 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 schema provides no descriptions for content, project_dir, or resource_name, and the tool description adds no detail about their format, allowed values, or relationships. Parameter meanings must be inferred from names alone.
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 clear verb ('Write'), a specific resource type ('pipeline handoff state'), and a scope ('for a project'), with an example ('e.g. a screening report'). It distinguishes the tool from generic file writers, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with write_project_file or append_project_file.
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 is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like write_project_file or append_project_file. The description mentions 'pipeline handoff state' but doesn't clarify the intended use case or boundary conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.