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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It communicates that the tool returns ready-to-paste configuration, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention side-effect absence, authentication requirements, or error behavior. Still, for a simple retrieval tool, this level is acceptable.

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 conveys purpose, output format, and context of use without any wasted words.

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 simple tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema. The description adequately covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it, making it complete for the given complexity.

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%: the parameter 'client' already provides a full description ('Target agent client. Omit to get all configs.'). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('MCP configuration') with target clients ('Cursor, Claude Code, or Codex'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on components, prototypes, or design guidelines.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use on the Connect page or when setting up a new project.' It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a config-getter there are no overlapping sibling tools, so this is clear enough context.

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