Validate and audit work slices, evidence, and gates so a worker's DONE claim never becomes trusted completion without verification.
Validate, audit and verify without allowing a worker DONE claim to become trusted completion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | No | ||
| operation | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.16Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds one useful constraint about not trusting worker DONE claims, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, state changes, or read/write characteristics for the many operations.
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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is not appropriately sized for an 18-operation gateway. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, omitting necessary structure for a complex tool.
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 tool has no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an 18-value operation enum, yet the description explains neither operation behavior nor payload semantics. An output schema does not compensate for the missing operational context required to invoke this tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the required operation parameter or the optional payload. With 18 enum operations, the schema provides no explanation, and the description does nothing to compensate.
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 names a general domain—validate, audit, verify—and states a trust-boundary goal about worker DONE claims. However, it does not identify a specific resource or distinguish among the 18 operations in the enum, leaving the tool's purpose broad and partially vague.
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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, prerequisites, or which sibling tools are alternatives. The only implied usage comes from the phrase about preventing DONE claims from becoming trusted completion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.