Records one onboarding answer from the user and returns the next question, so coding agents can guide setup without inventing user choices.
VibeWise: record one onboarding answer from the user and get the next question. Never answer these yourself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| field | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | The user's answer. | |
| projectPath | No | ||
| questionStyle | No | ||
| checkpointFrequency | No | ||
| implementationStyle | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'the next question', but omits critical conversational behavior: whether answers are validated, if errors reset state, or how state persists between calls. For a stateful onboarding tool, this is a notable gap.
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 extremely concise—two short sentences that front-load the core action and include a critical negative constraint ('Never answer these yourself'). Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (stateful, multi-turn onboarding with 6 parameters and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on error handling, state progression, or how optional parameters influence behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
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 description coverage is very low at 17%, meaning the schema provides almost no semantic help. The description mentions recording an 'answer' but does not explain the purpose of optional parameters like projectPath, questionStyle, checkpointFrequency, or implementationStyle, failing to compensate for the coverage 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?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('record one onboarding answer') and clarifies its function in the stateful flow ('get the next question'). It distinguishes itself from passive sibling tools like vibe_status or vibe_report, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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?
The instruction 'Never answer these yourself' implies usage context (agent must fetch user input), which is helpful. However, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to call this versus vibe_start or vibe_confirm, leaving the agent to infer the sequence from tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.