reconcile_operationCheck whether an operation already succeeded by comparing it with durable Harness events, preventing duplicate submissions for uncertain requests.
Compare an uncertain operation with durable Harness events without submitting a duplicate request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this by promising no duplicate request. It adds useful context by specifying reconciliation against 'durable Harness events', which tells the agent this is an event-based check rather than a live query.
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?
A single 14-word sentence that front-loads the verb and object, then packs the crucial side-effect guarantee at the end. There is no fluff, no repetition of the title, and every word earns 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?
For a one-parameter, annotation-rich tool, the description covers the core purpose, the source of truth, and the safety guarantee. It does not describe the return value or how to interpret the comparison result, and no output schema exists to fill that gap, so a small completeness gap remains.
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 single parameter operationId is not described in the schema (0% coverage), and the description only refers to 'an uncertain operation' without explicitly mapping it to the required parameter. It adds the qualitative notion of uncertainty, but leaves the parameter semantics largely implicit.
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?
Description opens with a specific verb 'Compare' and identifies the resource ('uncertain operation') and the reference data ('durable Harness events'). The phrase 'without submitting a duplicate request' distinguishes it from retry or creation tools, and it is clearly differentiated from siblings like get_operation.
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 'uncertain operation' signals the intended use case: when an operation's outcome is ambiguous and the agent needs to verify against durable events. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_operation or status_run, nor does it state when not to use it, so some inference remains.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.