digital-compass-mcp

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: deterministic keyword matching (not guessing), result limit of 3, and scoring. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys matching algorithm, constraints, and output format.

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?

Covers input (query, language, filters) and output (3 best matches with scores). Lacks mention of how scoring works or edge-case handling, but sufficient given no output 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description does not add per-parameter details but explains overall input-output behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does heavy lifting.

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 matches user's situation description against covered situations using deterministic keyword matching, returning best 3 matches with a score. It distinguishes from sibling tools like compass_list_situations (which lists all situations) and compass_get_content (which retrieves content by ID).

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 explains when to use (user's own words for situation matching) and the deterministic behavior, but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or list alternatives among siblings. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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 destructiveHint, covering safety traits. The description adds context about transparency and scope ('every playbook and guide'), but does not disclose format details or potential latency. It does not contradict 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (date of last editorial review), though it could specify the output format. Overall, it is sufficient for simple usage.

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 zero parameters, schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline is 4.

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 provides 'the date of the last editorial review' for 'every playbook and guide', specifying a concrete verb (provides transparency) and resource (freshness info). It distinguishes from siblings like compass_find_playbook (search) and compass_get_content (retrieval).

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 the tool is for checking content freshness but does not explicitly specify when to use it versus alternatives like compass_get_content. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the tool's simplicity reduces the need for extensive guidelines.

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 and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that content is 'markdown' and that in MCP Apps-capable hosts it renders as a 'calm step-by-step checklist card', providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first defines content and structure, second gives usage and rendering context. No fluff or 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?

Given the simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, content type, and rendering. It might lack error handling info or behavior for invalid slugs, but that is minor for a straightforward getter with good schema annotations.

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 each parameter having descriptions (lang enum details, slug guidance, type enum meanings). The description briefly mentions 'playbook' and 'prevention guide' but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it returns 'full markdown of a crisis playbook or of a prevention guide', specifying content types. The title reinforces 'full content'. While it implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like compass_list_situations (which lists metadata), it does not explicitly distinguish from compass_find_playbook.

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 says 'Suitable to relay to the user step by step', which implies when to use it (after selecting a playbook/guide). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like compass_find_playbook for searching.

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable context: public Romanian guide, plain language, content in 9 languages, and per-language anchoring details. No contradictions with 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?

The description is front-loaded with key information and is relatively concise. It could be slightly shorter, but it is well-structured and avoids verbosity.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description indicates that the result includes slugs for use with compass_get_content, covering essential behavior. It also explains language anchoring and audience filters, making it complete for a list tool.

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 descriptions. The description adds distinction between playbook and guide categories for the categorie parameter, which is not in the schema. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states it lists digital-crisis situations and prevention guides, mentioning specific use cases and the purpose of providing slugs for another tool. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like compass_get_content.

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 obtaining a list of situations with slugs for further retrieval, and mentions optional filters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like compass_find_playbook.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: that channels are derived from playbooks' 'Where to report' sections, that lang determines the country, and that slug filters to one situation while no slug returns deduplicated all. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise—two sentences plus a list-like structure using arrows and examples. Every word adds value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides specific, actionable context for the parameters.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool returns (channels per country), how lang and slug affect results, and that results are deduplicated. It could mention the output format (e.g., list of channel names or objects), but the current level is sufficient for most agents to use 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the country mapping for each lang value (e.g., 'lang=ro/en/hu → channels in ROMANIA') and the effect of the 'slug' parameter (with slug: only that situation's channels; without: all, deduplicated). This clarifies the behavioral impact beyond the schema's enum and optional text.

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 provides 'real reporting channels for digital incidents' from playbooks, and differentiates from siblings by focusing on channels rather than playbook content or freshness. It gives specific examples for different languages and countries, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explains when to use the tool (to get reporting channels) and how the 'lang' parameter selects country-specific channels (e.g., ro/en/hu → Romania, pl → Poland). It also covers the effect of the optional 'slug' parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like compass_find_playbook.

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