Reconcile candidate discoveries before work admission, ensuring admitted state remains unchanged. Use this to validate candidate records without rebuilding or altering existing state.
Reconcile candidate discovery only before work admission; never rebuild admitted state from discovered records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| records | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a critical safety constraint ('never rebuild admitted state from discovered records') which is valuable, but it does not disclose what the tool does with the records (e.g., mutates? reads? creates? side effects) or what happens on invocation. This is insufficient for a tool with such an opaque name.
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 very brief (one sentence) and front-loads the key constraint. It is concise and has no fluff, but the conciseness sacrifices necessary detail. Still, for what it says, it is efficient, so it earns a 4 for structure.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid. The tool name is cryptic, and the description does not clarify the purpose, the meaning of 'records', or the expected behavior. With one required parameter and no parameter details, the description is far from complete for an agent to use it 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 does not explain the 'records' parameter at all. The only parameter is 'records' (an array of objects), but the description does not specify what these records are, their structure, or how they relate to 'candidate discovery'. Since coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
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 says 'Reconcile candidate discovery only before work admission; never rebuild admitted state from discovered records.' It is unclear what 'reconcile' does operationally — does it merge, compare, update? The verb is vague and there is no explicit resource beyond 'candidate discovery'. It hints at a distinction but does not state a clear purpose that would help an agent understand what action to take.
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 a partial usage guideline: 'only before work admission' suggests a timing constraint, but there is no mention of when NOT to use it or what alternatives exist among siblings (e.g., bigbang_scan, discover_scopes). No exclusions are given, and an agent cannot infer which other tool to use in other contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.