concord-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses atomicity and that the handoff outcome does not change lifecycle state, which is useful. However, it does not mention other behaviors like version staleness rejection, permission requirements, or idempotency—only the schema covers these.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and concisely lists the three outcome alternatives. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 19-parameter schema with full descriptions and no output schema, the description provides key behavioral context (recording evidence and state transitions). It is adequate for the tool's primary purpose, though it leaves the return value or side effects unexplained, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema; it ties outcomes to lifecycle changes, but that is already documented in the outcome property. No additional parameter context is offered.

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 states a specific verb ('record') and resource ('completion evidence') and enumerates the three possible task state outcomes. It clearly identifies the tool as the finalization step, though it does not explicitly contrast with update_work or transfer_work.

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 description explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the sibling tools (e.g., update_work, transfer_work). The outcome choices are described, but the description lacks conditions or exclusions that would help an agent decide to pick this tool over alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description correctly aligns with them. Beyond that, it adds the constraint that only one selector can be supplied at a time and clarifies the different scopes (workspace, task, agent, message). This additional behavioral context is valuable and not present in the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Read') and lists the scope. There is zero fluff; every word earns its place, and the selector constraint is clearly stated at the end.

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 read-only inspection tool with four optional parameters, the description adequately explains the various selection modes and the workspace resolution behavior. It does not describe the return format, but given the tool name and the read-only nature, the output is self-evident. With no output schema, this would be a minor gap, but the description covers enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds the global constraint of 'at most one selector' and restates the resource types, but it does not provide deeper semantics beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for a well-covered schema.

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 'Read' and lists the distinct resources (workspace, task, agent inbox/outbox, prompt/reply thread), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools (start_work, update_work, etc.) which are all actions, while this is the only inspection tool.

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 description implies usage by stating that at most one selector can be supplied, which is useful for invoking the tool correctly. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions. The distinction from siblings is obvious from the tool names, but the description itself does not verbalize it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the multi-step side effects (register/refresh agent, accept addressed work, claim scope) and the return value ('actionable overlap warnings'). It communicates stateful behavior agents would not otherwise know from the schema.

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 compact sentence, efficiently front-loaded with the when ('Enter one task before editing') before the action list. The list of steps is dense but each item earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 complex 18-parameter workflow tool, the description captures the essential journey (register, accept, claim, return warnings) and names the output. The required parameters are covered by the schema, so nothing critical is missing 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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'claim the declared scope' and 'overlap warnings' loosely maps to workspace_id/risk_tags/expected_files, but it adds no concrete format or syntax guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action ('Enter one task before editing: register or refresh this agent, accept addressed work when needed, claim the declared scope') with a clear resource and purpose. It implicitly differentiates from siblings (inspect/update/transfer/finish) by being the task-entry and scope-claiming action, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 phrase 'Enter one task before editing' establishes when to use the tool as a pre-edit registration step, and 'accept addressed work when needed' gives conditional context. However, it never names alternatives such as update_work or finish_work or states when NOT to use it, leaving selection to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at 'versioned' and 'evidence-bearing handoff' but does not explain what versioning entails, whether actions are reversible, what state transitions occur, or what happens on failure. The description is too sparse to convey the operational impact of this mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action set and concept. It contains no filler and gets to the point immediately. For a tool with 19 parameters, it is appropriately terse, though it could arguably benefit from more structure to improve scannability.

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 (19 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the versioning mechanism, the required fields for each action, the nature of an 'evidence-bearing handoff', or how these actions fit into the broader workflow with siblings. An agent would need to infer too much to use it correctly and safely.

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 79%, which is high, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond listing the action enum values, which are already present in the schema. Since the schema already documents parameters like task_id, action, expected_version, and to_agent_id, the description's lack of parameter elaboration does not significantly hinder understanding.

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 states a clear verb ('Apply') and a specific resource ('versioned ownership action') and enumerates all seven allowed actions, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the action list clearly distinguishes it from start_work, update_work, and finish_work, so the purpose is well-defined.

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 its siblings. The description does not mention that this is for transferring ownership between agents, nor does it reference start_work, update_work, or finish_work, or any conditions that would make this tool the right choice. An agent is left to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'live' delivery for prompts/replies but does not disclose idempotency requirements, delivery semantics, persistence of records, or any side effects. The schema covers idempotency_key requirement for prompt/reply, but that is in the schema, not this description.

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 very short and front-loaded, which is efficient, but for a tool with 10 parameters and 3 operations it is too underspecified to be adequately informative. It is not verbose, but it fails to convey the operational complexity or usage nuances, so it earns a middle score.

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?

This is a complex tool with 10 parameters, three distinct operations, no annotations, and no output schema. The description merely lists two high-level capabilities and provides no clarity on operation selection, delivery behavior, or any edge cases. It is grossly incomplete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify the distinction between operations (record/prompt/reply) or explain any parameter interactions, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Record' and 'deliver') with a resource ('task context' and 'live prompt/reply'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like start_work and finish_work by its messaging capability. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the description only states what it does without any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not explain which operation (record vs. prompt vs. reply) to choose based on context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.