example_shift_noteA worked, entirely FICTIONAL example of the kind of NDIS shift note Sparks Scribe produces (structure and tone). Kinds: 'daily_progress' (default) or 'incident'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Which example to show |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it produces a fictional example; it does not elaborate on side effects, authentication needs, or other traits. Since annotations cover the behavioral profile, a score of 3 is appropriate for not adding significant value.
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 that front-loads the purpose and immediately adds relevant detail about kinds. 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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what the tool produces, the parameter options, and the default. No additional information is needed.
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 parameter 'kind' is fully described in the schema (enum values). The description adds value by specifying that 'daily_progress' is the default, which is not present in the 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 clearly states it is a 'worked, entirely FICTIONAL example of the kind of NDIS shift note Sparks Scribe produces (structure and tone).' It identifies the specific resource (shift note example) and distinguishes from sibling tools that serve other purposes like pricing or trial info.
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 the tool is for obtaining example notes, likely for demonstration or testing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks definitive guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: about describes the app, example provides a sample note, pricing gives cost info, trial explains the trial. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: descriptive noun phrases with underscores (about_sparks_scribe, example_shift_note, get_pricing, get_trial_info).
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for an informational resource about Sparks Scribe. Each tool addresses a key user need without being too sparse or excessive.
The tool surface covers the main informational needs: definition, example, pricing, and trial. A minor gap is the lack of a tool for support or FAQ, but the core functionality is complete.