Optimizers MCP

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that this is not a full CSS parser and output should be visually verified. That caveat about imperfect fidelity is exactly what an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the scope limit and the fidelity caveat. No padding or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter, no-output-schema read-only tool, the description covers purpose, scope boundary, and the key caveat about output fidelity. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the 4096-character limit, so the schema does all the work. The description adds no format or syntactic detail beyond it, making baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reduce whitespace in CSS snippets'), and the resource name distinguishes it from the minify-html and minify-js siblings without needing further explanation. It stops short of explicitly contrasting its scope with those siblings, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Use for basic stylesheet cleanup rather than production minification' gives both a when-to-use and an explicit when-not-to-use, which is real routing guidance. It doesn't name a sibling alternative for the production case, so it's short of a 5.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it states the return type ('Returns an HTML string'), discloses content-preservation guarantees (pre, textarea, script, style), and warns to regression-test rendered output — a real caveat for a transformer. It does not mention errors or size-limit failures, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core operation front-loaded and no padding. The closing 'Regression-test rendered output' is a terse imperative that earns its place as a caution, though it could be slightly more explicit about why output may differ.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is nearly complete: it covers scope, return type and preservation semantics. Only edge-case behavior (invalid HTML, input over the 4096 limit) is left 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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage (the schema already documents 'Original HTML source as text, up to 4096 characters'), the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax, encoding or escaping guidance for the html field, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pair (remove comments, compact whitespace) and an explicit resource (HTML fragments), which cleanly separates it from the sibling minify-css, minify-js and minify-prompt tools. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear negative boundary ('not full document compilation') and scopes the tool to 'small, controlled HTML snippets', which matches the 4096-character cap. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for the full-document case, so it is clear context without full alternative 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 readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: output may be returned unchanged for complex syntax and the user is warned to regression-test it, which is useful operational context.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause. Every sentence earns its place: scope, exclusion, and the return/behavior caveat.

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 single-param, no-output-schema tool, the description usefully covers the return type ('Returns JavaScript text') and the caveat about unchanged output. Combined with annotations carrying the safety profile, an agent has what it needs, though a hint at size/edge limits beyond the schema would round it out.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'code' and its 4096-character limit. The description's 'small snippets' phrasing corroborates but adds no syntax, format or encoding detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Compact small JavaScript snippets') and scopes it against a stronger alternative ('not AST-aware production minification'), so an agent knows this is a basic JS compactor. It distinguishes from minify-css/minify-html only implicitly via the 'JavaScript' resource and never names a sibling, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Use for basic source cleanup, not AST-aware production minification' gives both a use case and an explicit exclusion, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating concrete conditions, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is free. The description adds real value beyond them: the output is trimmed/normalized text, no semantic compression occurs (filler phrases preserved), and there is a stated caveat about whitespace-significant prompts. No return-format or size-limit detail, but the behavioral contract is well communicated.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the core operation, then usage, then the caveat and return note. No filler. Slightly dense with semicolon packing, but every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers the return value ('trimmed text with normalized spacing'), plus the key limitation that semantic content is untouched. For a one-parameter, low-complexity formatting tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, this is essentially complete.

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 is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, including the 4096-character limit), so the schema carries this dimension. The description adds only an implicit sense of what the input is and does not describe input format or edge behavior beyond what the schema states; baseline 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?

States a specific operation (normalize prompt whitespace and line breaks) on a specific resource (prompt text), and immediately disambiguates from what 'minify' might imply by saying filler phrases are not removed. That distinction also cleanly separates it from the minify-css/minify-html/minify-js siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Gives an explicit usage context ('use to compact formatting before calling a model') and a caution about when the operation is risky ('review prompts where whitespace carries meaning'). It stops short of naming the alternative to reach for in those whitespace-sensitive cases, so it is clear context without full exclusion 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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the return is text in the selected format, and the operation is lossy in specific ways (trims strings, deduplicates rows, may drop mostly empty columns). The 'may drop' wording is honest disclosure of a data-dropping side effect.

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: purpose first, then usage routing plus a behavioral summary. No filler, no repetition of the name or title, and the alternative tool is named in the same breath as the constraint.

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 correctly covers the return ('text in the selected format') and the transformations applied, which is what an agent needs for a 2-parameter tool. Minor gap: it does not note the 4096-character input ceiling or any failure behavior, though the length cap is already in the schema.

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%, so both 'input' and 'format' (including the auto/json/jsonl/csv enum) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'the selected format' and the three formats echoes the schema without adding syntax or format-specific semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb pair (clean and compact) plus the exact resource (JSON, JSONL or CSV rows), and the title/description together make the 'minify structured data' role unmistakable against siblings like minify-css or minify-html. An agent can distinguish it from generate-dataset and is-json-safe without opening the schema.

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?

'Use for small datasets' gives a clear scope condition, and it explicitly routes the agent to is-json-safe for the syntax-check-without-changes case. It stops short of stating what happens on larger inputs or naming other alternatives, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context about the return value ('replacement HTML with async loading and a config call, or original input if no G- ID exists') and warns about lost settings and consent review, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage constraints and return behavior. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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 single-parameter transformation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it rebuilds, when to use it, what it returns, and what to watch out for (lost settings, consent). Combined with annotations and the input schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100% and the single parameter 'html' is fully described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already states, so 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 states a specific verb ('Rebuild') and resource ('GA4 gtag.js markup') and explicitly distinguishes the tool from GTM containers and consent setup. An agent can immediately understand what the tool does and what it does not handle.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use on existing GA4 snippets, not GTM containers or consent setup.' This tells the agent both when to use the tool and when to avoid it, and the caveat 'Review lost settings and consent' adds a clear post-use check.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return behavior ('Returns plain text without interpreting log entries'), clarifying that log content is passed through untouched. It does not mention truncation or size-limit behavior, though maxLength 4096 is in the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the use case and return behavior. Every sentence carries information and none is 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only text transformation with a fully described schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and output nature. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and no output schema is required for this simple string return.

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 100% with a single self-documenting 'text' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or encoding detail about the input beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('Strip terminal ANSI escape codes from text'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the minify-* and optimize-* siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete usage context ('Use to make colorized logs readable for indexing or display'), which tells the agent when this tool applies. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions, so there is no explicit routing guidance against the sibling tools.

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