explain_referrals_basicsSummarize how Payram referral campaigns are configured and managed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| sections | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it will 'Summarize', which implies a read-only informational output with no side effects. However, it does not disclose the return format, level of detail, or any potential limitations. For a simple explain tool this is acceptable but not thoroughly transparent.
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 states the verb and resource immediately. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or 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?
The tool is intentionally simple: zero parameters, an output schema exists, and the description covers the core purpose. It could potentially list subtopics (e.g., referral links, rewards, tracking), but the description is complete enough for a basics overview tool given its simplicity.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema confirms this with no properties. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly adds no parameter-specific semantics because none are needed.
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 ('Summarize') and clearly identifies the resource ('Payram referral campaigns') and the scope ('configured and managed'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like explain_referral_flow (which likely covers the process flow) and explain_payram_basics (which covers Payram generally).
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 for a high-level overview of referral campaign setup and management, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as explain_referral_flow or get_referral_dashboard_guide. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.