Create a structured research template file to document findings with a specified title, category, and directory. Organize research documentation for consistent and clear records.
Create a research template file for documenting findings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Title of the research | |
| category | No | Research category | general |
| researchPath | No | Path to research directory | docs/research |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint is false, aligning with the 'Create' action, but the description does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, or potential outcomes beyond creation. No details about file overwriting, directory creation, or error conditions are provided.
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, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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 description lacks context about when or why to use this tool. It does not explain the broader workflow, what a 'research template' entails, or how it fits with sibling research tools. Given the simplicity of the operation, more context on expected outcomes would be beneficial.
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 coverage is 100% with all three parameters (title, category, researchPath) described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, the base score of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.
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 clearly states the primary action (Create) and the specific resource (research template file), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'create_rule_set' or 'generate_research_questions', though the resource type provides some distinction.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of suitable scenarios, conditions, or why a user would choose this over sibling tools. The 'for documenting findings' clause is a mild hint but not actionable usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.