medusa-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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'the most relevant sections' with URLs and content, which gives some insight into output behavior. However, it lacks critical details such as how relevance is determined, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and output format, while the second provides usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 (a search function with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral traits like search algorithms, result limits, or error cases. Without an output schema, it should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, but it does mention the output format briefly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'question' parameter documented as 'The question to ask Medusa.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on query formatting. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search the official Medusa documentation and return the most relevant sections from it for a user query.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (Medusa documentation), and output format (sections with URL and content). However, with no sibling tools mentioned, there's no explicit differentiation from alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this tool for all queries that require Medusa knowledge.' This explicitly defines when to use the tool. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives might exist, which prevents a score of 5.

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