Olist Tiny ERP

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns by noting call without args returns a link. No contradictions. It adds context about token behavior and session vs permanent setup, 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 informative but somewhat verbose and run-on in the first sentence. It could be more concise while retaining the same information. Still, it front-loads key actions.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage. It mentions the link and access token but does not detail the return format. Sufficient for a simple authentication 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter as optional for session login and detailing both invocation methods (with or without token). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's simple type definition.

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 is for authentication and login, providing context for IDE agents. It distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' or 'marketplace' by focusing on token generation. However, it lacks a single concise verb+resource phrase.

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 guidance on two usage modes: permanent config via header or session-based login with token parameter. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.

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 mark it as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing return values in different states (all connected vs missing credentials), enhancing transparency beyond 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 core purpose. No unnecessary words; every part adds value.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what it returns and under what conditions. No gaps.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4; the description does not need to add parameter info.

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 returns connection status and URLs, with distinct behavior for all-connected vs missing credentials. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like authenticate.

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 use for checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools, the context is sufficient for a simple read-only tool.

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 the annotations (which only indicate openWorldHint, not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), the description discloses key behaviors: invoke works for uninstalled MCPs without bloating the toolkit, returns connect/checkout links for auth/billing, install requires workspace owner/admin, and one-off installs behind invoke require owner/admin. These are concrete side-effect details.

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 long but dense with critical information. It is front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and uses hyphens and semicolons to pack many details. Some redundancy exists (e.g., reiterating invoke one-off behavior), but every sentence earns its place given the tool's complexity.

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?

Coverage is extensive: core flows, auth, billing, permissions, and the prompt library are all explained. However, the 'resume' action is not mentioned, and return formats for search/describe/invoke are not described. Since there is no output schema, the description could have been more complete about what the agent can expect back.

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 23 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the action parameter (search/describe/invoke/install/etc.) and the roles of tool_id, arguments, prompt_* fields, and query, but does not explain limit, message, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, request_name, cancel_reason, etc. Still, it adds significant meaning for the core flow.

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 that the marketplace is the official catalog of every MCP/tool and the way to run them. It enumerates specific actions (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and distinguishes this from sibling tools by describing its multi-purpose role, including the prompt library.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and outlines the core search→describe→invoke flow. It also tells when to use alternatives like list_tools and request_mcp.

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 indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety profile. The description adds value by specifying that the conversation array should contain recent messages for reproduction, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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 with no wasted words. Essential information is presented efficiently and front-loaded.

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 reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and key input. However, it lacks details about expected behavior after calling (e.g., confirmation, response) and does not fully compensate for the absence of parameter descriptions 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that message is the bug report, context is optional, and conversation should be included for reproduction. However, it does not specify the format (e.g., conversation should be a JSON string) or detailed meaning of context.

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 reports bugs, missing features, or feedback, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate and connect by its unique purpose.

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 mentions including the conversation array for reproduction but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage guidance is implied but not thorough.

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 are uninformative (all hints false). The description reveals three actions but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, side effects of invoke, rate limits, or idempotency. For a tool with a mutation action, more transparency is needed.

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 very concise: two sentences that effectively communicate the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the key concept ('single entrypoint') and presents actions in a clear, structured manner.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how to combine parameters. Agents lack sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 0%. The description mentions 'action' and 'tool_id' but ignores parameters like query, queries, arguments, min_score, force_reindex. It adds minimal 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 clearly identifies the tool as the single entrypoint for the MCP catalog, listing three distinct actions (search, describe, invoke) with specific purposes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which have different functions.

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 as the main catalog interface but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but guidance is minimal.

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. The description adds context about output content (MCP platform/adapter versions), going beyond safety traits.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and resource.

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 no parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description fully informs the agent of the tool's purpose and output.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, baseline is 4; description adds no param info, but none is 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 clearly states it shows current MCP platform and adapter versions. It specifies the exact resource and action with no ambiguity, and no sibling tool overlaps.

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 checking versions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use it, nor does it compare with sibling tools.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail about the returned data, but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral nuances such as whether the call hits a live service or requires authentication. This is a modest increase over 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, tightly structured sentence that immediately states the result and then lists the key components. No filler or repetition. Every clause adds value.

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 simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden. It explains what will be returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected output. It doesn't mention error behavior or format, but the task complexity is low.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and it correctly avoids inventing any. The focus on return content is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource: current toolkit state. It itemizes the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or search_tools.

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: you would call this to inspect toolkit state. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of other tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear but not elaborated.

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