Check whether a single assertion is supportable at a given time, without altering its truth or activation state. Provide assertion_id and optional known_at/valid_at.
Evaluate one assertion's supportability without changing truth or activation state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| known_at | No | ||
| valid_at | No | ||
| assertion_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses one important trait: the operation does not change truth or activation state, so it is non-mutating. But it does not cover permissions, authentication requirements, error conditions, or other side-effect details that an agent might need.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and every clause contributes, though the brevity leaves little structure for usage or parameter context.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a tool with three parameters at 0% schema description coverage and many closely related truth/assertion siblings, the description is substantially incomplete: it omits parameter semantics, usage alternatives, and permission or side-effect context.
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% for three parameters. The description only implies that an assertion is evaluated, giving no meaning for the required assertion_id or the optional known_at and valid_at temporal parameters. It therefore fails to compensate for the completely undocumented schema.
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 states a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('one assertion's supportability'), and it clarifies the non-mutating scope by saying it does not change truth or activation state. It distinguishes from write siblings like record_truth_assertion and invalidate_truth_assertion, but does not differentiate from read-oriented siblings such as truth_at or bitemporal_truth_status.
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 phrase 'without changing truth or activation state' implies a read-only status check, which gives some contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named among the many truth-related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.