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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals the manifest-only behavior when path is omitted, warns about the ~50KB output truncation limit, and advises reading files one at a time. This is vital operational detail that goes well beyond 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?

The description is two concise sentences: the first delivers the core purpose, the second provides actionable usage guidance. Every word adds value, with no preamble 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?

For a simple 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return behavior (manifest vs content), the truncation limitation, and the recommended workflow. It is complete for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself provides detailed parameter descriptions including the truncation caveat in the path field. The description adds little parameter-specific context beyond the schema, 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 clearly states the tool reads source code files of a deployed MCP connector and gives examples (server.js, package.json). It distinguishes itself from other tools by specifying the mcp_store location and the 'read before modifying' intent.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool BEFORE patching or rewriting a connector, giving clear when-to-use guidance. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the 'read current code first' directive implies the appropriate sequencing and purpose.

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