Record an implementation report after approved coding: what changed, how it works, why it fits the design, and actual verification results.
VibeWise: record the implementation report after approved coding: what changed, how it works, why it fits the design, and real verification results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| summary | Yes | ||
| projectPath | No | ||
| verification | No | Checks actually run and their results; state plainly if none were run. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose useful expectations about content fidelity ('real verification results'). However, it never states whether this persists/writes state, what side effects it has, or any permission requirements, which a report-recording tool should clarify.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the essential trigger ('after approved coding') appears early. Slightly dense with enumerated clauses, but every clause carries information.
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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the report's substance well but omits the fate of projectPath, whether the report is persisted or returned, and any workflow consequences. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 only 33%: 'verification' is documented, while 'summary' and 'projectPath' have no schema descriptions. The description partially compensates by defining what the summary should contain, but says nothing about projectPath or how paths are interpreted, leaving a real 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 gives a specific verb ('record') and resource ('the implementation report'), then enumerates the report's content: what changed, how it works, why it fits the design, and verification results. That is far more specific than the name alone, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like vibe_checkpoint or vibe_confirm.
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?
'after approved coding' establishes a clear workflow trigger for when to call this tool, which is genuine context in a pipeline of vibe_ tools. It falls short of a 5 because no alternative tool is named and no when-not condition is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.