Returns active decision flags for the current alignment as TSV: one latest row per spot, excluding cleared entries, with spot IDs, assignments, redundant pairs, notes, sources, and timestamps.
現在のアラインメントで有効な判断（スポットごとの最新 1 行、clear 済みは除く）を TSV で返す。 列は spot_id・flag・name（assign の記録名）・of（redundant の相手スポット）・note・source・ts。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, but the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: output is TSV, only the latest row per spot is included, and cleared items are excluded. It does not mention size limits, pagination, or authorization requirements, but the key filtering behavior is disclosed.
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 two compact sentences. The key return format and filtering rule are front-loaded, followed by the column list, with no wasted text.
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?
Because there is no output schema, the description appropriately documents the TSV columns and filtering behavior. However, it leaves the sole optional parameter unexplained and gives no routing guidance among the many curation-related siblings, so it is only minimally complete for correct 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?
There is one optional parameter, file_path, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate by explaining what file_path controls, but it does not.
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 returns currently valid curation decisions as TSV, with specific scope: latest row per spot and excluding cleared entries. It also names the exact columns, making the resource and output concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as curation_view_data or curation_review, so it falls short of a 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?
The description explains what is returned but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus curation_view_data, curation_review, curation_suggest, or curation_submit. Usage is only implied by the read-only nature of the output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.