Classify an agent claim to identify the evidence gate it must satisfy, so coding agents can verify completion or current-state claims before reporting success.
Classify an agent claim and return the evidence gate it must satisfy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | Yes | ||
| claim_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does 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 does not disclose whether classification is deterministic, what categories exist, whether it mutates state, or what 'evidence gate' means operationally — a significant gap for a tool whose output apparently gates downstream behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though brevity here shades into under-specification rather than deliberate concision.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a tool with zero parameter documentation, no annotations, and no usage routing, the description leaves an agent unable to construct a valid call with confidence or know when to make one.
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 0% and neither parameter has any schema-level description. The description does not explain what 'claim' should contain or what the optional 'claim_type' override does, so the meaning of both parameters is undocumented everywhere.
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 ('classify') and resource ('agent claim') and hints at an output ('evidence gate'), which separates it somewhat from siblings like validate_evidence or resolve_precedence. However, 'evidence gate' and 'agent claim' are undefined domain terms, so an agent cannot tell precisely what classification taxonomy or output is produced.
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 call this versus validate_evidence, check_completion_evidence, or the other six siblings. The condition under which classification precedes or replaces evidence validation is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.