Report source-scoped reference coverage, revision status, and manual review dates for SLua documentation, so you can verify which references are current and reviewed.
Report source-scoped reference coverage, revisions and manual review dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only what the report contains, not scope limits, freshness, or which reference corpus counts, so it is useful but thin beyond the annotations.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler, which suits a zero-parameter status tool. The only cost is the unexplained compound "source-scoped reference coverage," which is dense jargon packed into an otherwise efficient line.
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?
With no parameters, an output schema, and full annotations, the remaining burden is disambiguation, which is unmet. An agent can call it correctly but cannot confidently choose it over lsl_reference_status or know what "source-scoped" means in this tool's 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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema has 100% description coverage, so there is nothing to disambiguate. The description is consistent with a no-argument status call and adds no conflicting parameter claims.
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?
A concrete verb ("Report") paired with specific reported content (reference coverage, revisions, manual review dates), so the resource is identifiable. However, it never mentions that this is the SLua reference family or how it differs from the near-identical sibling lsl_reference_status, and "source-scoped" is left unexplained.
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 when-to-use guidance at all: it does not say whether to call this before a lookup, after code changes, or instead of slua_search_reference / slua_lookup_symbol. With 13 siblings in two parallel families, the absence of routing is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.