List derivations and their review progress in a project, showing how far each review has advanced. Use a goal to filter and focus on specific outcomes.
Derivations and how far each review has got.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Directory identifying the project and the tree. Defaults to this session's working directory, which in a git worktree is that worktree. | |
| goal | 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 alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only adds that the output concerns 'how far each review has got'; it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are scoped or ordered, whether it can be expensive, or what failures are possible.
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 short and contains no filler, but the brevity is under-specification, not effective structure. It is a fragment with no verb and no clear organization of 'what is listed' versus 'what progress information is returned'.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry return semantics. 'Derivations and how far each review has got' is too vague to be actionable: the meaning of 'review', the role of the goal parameter, and the precise form of progress are all missing.
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 50% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate for the undocumented goal parameter, but it does not. It neither explains how cwd or goal filter the result nor relates the term 'review' to either parameter.
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 identifies the topic—derivations and review progress—so it is not a pure tautology. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a statement of action; it never says it lists or returns anything, and it does not distinguish derive_list from sibling derive_* tools such as derive_review or derive_features.
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?
There is no explicit or implicit guidance about when to call this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention a use case, exclusions, or prerequisites, and the large set of sibling derive_* tools makes the choice ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.