mcp_engram_ingest_reference_frame

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency ('skips existing concepts') and the output format (.leg3), which are helpful behavioral traits. However, it omits side effects, required permissions, or failure modes, leaving gaps.

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 brief with three short sentences covering purpose, relation, and idempotency. No redundant or filler content. Slight jargon (WS5, .leg3) may obscure meaning, but overall it is efficiently front-loaded.

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 no annotations, output schema, or parameters, the description provides core purpose and idempotency. However, it lacks context to differentiate from numerous sibling ingest/creation tools (e.g., mcp_engram_import, mcp_engram_remember). An agent may need more context to select correctly.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add param info, but the existing content (mentions of core components) aligns with the tool's action, justifying the score.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Mint formal_spec:linguistic_reference_frame_v1 + genesis pillar blocks into local .leg3'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. However, heavy jargon and absence of a title reduce accessibility, so it scores 4 instead of 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions idempotency and a relationship to a patent spec, but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or relative advantages over sibling tools like mcp_engram_import.

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