mcp_engram_genesis

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that seeds are PRAXIS-tagged, at CRS=1.0, and non-decaying. However, it does not mention side effects of reseeding (e.g., overwriting existing blocks) or any authorization requirements.

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 extremely concise – three short sentences that front-load the purpose and provide essential details without fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 gives a good overview but lacks output details. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left wondering what 'status' returns. Also, reseed behavior is not fully specified (e.g., idempotent, destructive). Adequate but not complete.

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 has 100% coverage with enum descriptions. Description adds context by explaining what 'status' outputs (shows existing blocks) and that 'reseed' re-seeds all blocks, but this echoes the schema. Marginal additional value.

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 clearly states the tool inspects or re-seeds alignment genesis blocks. The verb 'inspect' and 're-seed' are specific, and it defines what genesis blocks are. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, though the unique name helps.

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 implies that reseeding is rarely needed ('seeded once on first boot and never decay'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others or any when-not-to-use conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.