Verifies Taiwan scenario matrix fixtures correctly declare corpus packs, tool boundaries, artifacts, gates, and HITL policies, ensuring valid acceptance coverage.
Verify Taiwan scenario matrix fixtures declare corpus packs, tool boundaries, artifacts, gates, and HITL policies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states it 'verifies' but does not mention side effects, error handling, or whether it is read-only.
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every part adds value.
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?
Lacks details on return values, failure behavior, or integration context. Without annotations or output schema, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to decide whether to invoke the tool.
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 input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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 specifies the verb 'Verify' and the resource 'Taiwan scenario matrix fixtures', listing explicit aspects verified (corpus packs, tool boundaries, artifacts, gates, HITL policies). It is clear but does not differentiate from sibling acceptance tools.
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?
No guidance on when or when not to use this tool, nor any alternatives mentioned. The description only states what it does without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.