Review synthetic fruit episodes to validate physical-AI evidence and explain beliefs from delayed or conflicting evidence; cloud use follows host configuration.
Review a synthetic fruit episode; cloud use is controlled by the host configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that cloud use is host-controlled, and says nothing about whether reviewing is read-only, what side effects or permissions are involved, or what the operation returns.
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 one front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though the content is under-specified rather than overly verbose.
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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description does not provide enough context to invoke the tool confidently. It should at least clarify what a 'case' is and what reviewing produces.
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 required parameter 'case' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what a case is or what format it expects. The schema only supplies the type and required status, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.
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 gives a verb and resource ('Review a synthetic fruit episode'), but 'review' is vague and 'fruit episode' is not explained. It only loosely distinguishes from siblings like review_scenario and review_simulation_episode, without saying what reviewing entails.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_scenarios, review_scenario, explain_belief, or review_simulation_episode. The note about cloud use being host-controlled is not a usage selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.