MCP Charts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description still adds value by explicitly disclaiming side effects ('does not install or execute anything') and by naming the returned content, which annotations do not cover.

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?

Two tight sentences with the returned content front-loaded and the negative constraint second. Nothing is wasted and no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly names the return payload, and the read-only nature is double-covered by annotations. Only the ID format and acquisition path are left implicit, a minor gap for a single-parameter lookup.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It does explain that 'id' means a catalog ID, but says nothing about the required 16-hex-character format or where the ID comes from, leaving part of the gap unaddressed.

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+resource and enumerates the payload (compatibility evidence, freshness, upstream setup link) keyed by catalog ID. 'By its catalog ID' implicitly separates it from the search/recommend siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

'By its catalog ID' implies the caller must already hold an ID, presumably obtained from search_resources or recommend_resources, and 'Does not install or execute anything' bounds the scope. However, neither the when-to-use condition nor an alternative tool is stated outright, leaving usage 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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior: the ranking order, that client preference is evidence rather than a compatibility test, and that requirement filtering does not happen here. These are real disclosures beyond the structured fields.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral constraint rather than filler. No bloat, though the terseness borders on cryptic in places ('must be checked upstream').

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 recommendation tool whose annotations already declare the safety profile and with no output schema, the description covers ranking behavior and the key limitation (no requirement filtering). It is nearly complete, though return shape and pagination via 'limit' are unspecified.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It adds meaning for 'client' (a preference treated as evidence, not tested compatibility) and contextually for 'task', but 'type' (the enum of skill/mcp/plugin/agent/prompt/rule) and 'limit' are completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 action and output: 'Find a shortlist for a task.' The verb/resource combination (recommend/find a shortlist) is clear and distinguishable from search_resources and get_resource by implication, but it never names those siblings, so differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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?

It implies the tool ranks rather than filters ('keyword relevance precedes repository stars') and warns that hard requirements must be 'checked upstream', which quietly signals its scope boundary. However, it never explicitly says when to pick this over search_resources or get_resource, so the agent must infer the routing.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral constraint beyond structured data: a hard cap of 24 results returned per page, which tells the agent how to page and that result sets are truncated.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core scope is front-loaded in the first sentence and the pagination constraint follows immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more of the return-value burden than it does; it states the count per page but not the shape of results (names, ids, scores, ranking). Combined with 0% parameter coverage, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent planning a call.

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%, so the description carries some burden. It partially compensates by enumerating the resource categories (mapping to the 'type' enum) and explaining the page-size behavior, but it says nothing about the query matching rules, the meaning of 'page' beyond the cap, or the 200-character query limit.

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 (search) plus the full set of resources covered (skills, MCP servers, plugins, agents, prompts, rules), which maps directly onto the type enum. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_resource or recommend_resources.

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 'precise keywords' implies a usage style for the query argument, and the pagination sentence hints at iterative use. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this tool over get_resource or recommend_resources, and no exclusions or failure conditions are given.

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