Run dependent code inspection, mutation, and test steps as one ordered DAG, passing outputs between steps for multi-stage fixes in a single round-trip.
Run meta-tools as one dependency-ordered DAG; later steps read earlier output via '$prev.output' or '$.output'. USE WHEN: a fix needs inspect->mutate->test in one round-trip. DO NOT USE: for one call, parallel work, or nesting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the data-flow mechanism ($prev.output / $<step>.output), dependency ordering, and the no-nesting constraint. However it says nothing about failure semantics — what happens when a step fails, whether execution is atomic or partial, or how errors surface — which is critical for an orchestration tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two terse sentences, front-loaded with the core mechanism, then the USE/DO NOT USE routing. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex orchestration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the core mechanism and routing are well covered. The main omission is failure/error behavior and result shape, which an agent orchestrating mutations would want to know.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the output-reference syntax ('$prev.output' or '$<step>.output') that feeds the arguments field, plus the dependency-ordered model underlying depends_on. It leaves id, arguments, and the exact depends_on format implicit, so it does not fully close the gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: runs meta-tools as a single dependency-ordered DAG. This immediately distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are the individual meta-tools being orchestrated (vfs_inspect, vfs_mutate, etc.).
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?
Explicit USE WHEN condition (inspect->mutate->test in one round-trip) and explicit DO NOT USE cases (single call, parallel work, nesting). This tells an agent both when to reach for the orchestrator and when to fall back to the individual siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.