Runs bounded local evidence qualification for a scenario, returning a decision and trace so agents can validate physical-AI evidence and audit why a workflow pauses.
Run bounded local evidence qualification, returning a decision and trace.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is 'bounded' and returns a decision and trace, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only or mutating, what 'bounded' means, whether it has side effects, or what permissions are required.
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 sentence with no wasted words, so it is structurally concise and front-loaded. However, its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient clarity.
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 tool with one undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain usage and return semantics more fully. It mentions a decision and trace but does not clarify their structure or the meaning of the required 'case' input.
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 adds no information about what a case is, its expected format, or how it affects the qualification. This leaves the only parameter entirely undocumented.
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 says it runs 'bounded local evidence qualification' and returns a decision and trace, but 'evidence qualification' is vague jargon rather than a concrete verb-resource statement. It does not clarify what a scenario is or how this differs from siblings like review_episode or review_simulation_episode.
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 is provided. The description does not name alternatives or explain when an agent should choose review_scenario over list_scenarios, explain_belief, review_episode, or review_simulation_episode.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.