Assigns the current on-call developer (Batman) to resolve incidents during sprint cycles.
Atribuir o Batman atual
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "batman_assign_batman"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'assign the current Batman'. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, whether it mutates state, or what the output is, making it entirely opaque.
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 brief, which might seem concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It provides no meaningful information beyond what the tool name already implies, so it does not earn its place.
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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameters, the description is the only source of context, and it is severely inadequate. It does not explain what 'assign' means, what the current Batman is, or any behavioral implications, making the tool effectively unusable for an agent.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the schema itself already fully describes the input. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is no gap in parameter documentation.
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 'Atribuir o Batman atual' restates the tool name with the addition of 'current', providing minimal clarity about what assigning the current Batman actually does. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like batman_get_current_batman or batman_create_developer, leaving the purpose ambiguous.
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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool would be appropriate, leaving the agent without any direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.