SBChart2.0 MCP

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling, or prerequisites. The warning about compliance is about usage of output, not tool behavior.

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: first states purpose, second adds a necessary usage caveat. No filler, front-loaded with key action.

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?

Simple tool with one param. However, without an output schema, the description does not explain the structure of returned documentation. Adequate but could mention what 'detailed documentation' includes.

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 one param 'name'. The description adds 'by exact name' which matches schema description. No additional semantic insight beyond schema, baseline score of 3.

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 retrieves detailed documentation for a specific SBChart2.0 option/API by exact name. It distinguishes from siblings like listSBChartAPIs (list all) and searchSBChartAPI (search).

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 includes a warning about compliance when generating code, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like searchSBChartAPI. Missing context for tool selection.

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?

No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavior like return format, pagination, or side effects beyond searching.

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; first is clear. Second sentence includes a warning about generation guidelines, which may be more relevant to usage than tool definition.

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?

Minimal completeness: purpose clear, but lacks details on output, limit parameter behavior, and any usage constraints for a simple 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?

Query parameter is described as 'Feature or use case' in schema, and description aligns but adds no new detail. 'limit' has no description and is not clarified. Schema coverage is 50%.

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?

Clearly states it searches for SBChart2.0 code examples by feature or use case. Distinct from sibling tools which deal with APIs.

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?

Implies usage for obtaining code examples, but does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when not to use it.

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 absent, so the description carries the burden. It includes a warning about compliance with server guidelines when generating code/samples, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other behaviors (e.g., read-only nature, auth requirements, or side effects).

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 sentences. The first sentence is clear and direct. The second sentence is a longer warning in Korean, which is relevant but slightly verbose. Overall, it is reasonably concise and front-loaded with purpose.

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 simple tool (2 optional params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral note. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or expected input constraints, making it minimally adequate.

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 states 'by section and/or category,' linking parameters to filtering, but does not explain the meaning of possible values (e.g., enum for section) or acceptable category formats. This adds marginal value 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 states 'List SBChart2.0 APIs by section and/or category.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('SBChart2.0 APIs'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like getSBChartAPIDetail (detail retrieval) and searchSBChartAPI (searching).

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 listing APIs by section/category, but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned, though the context suggests listing vs. getting details or 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses search functionality and a compliance warning for code generation, but does not mention rate limits, auth, or destructive potential (likely read-only).

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: first clear purpose, second adds relevant warning. Could combine but efficient overall.

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 basic purpose and one behavioral note, but lacks description of output/return values (no output schema). Missing pagination hints or usage context for results.

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 67% (query and section have descriptions, limit missing). Description repeats that query is a keyword and section can filter by given values, adding no new semantics beyond 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?

Clear verb 'Search' specifying resource 'SBChart2.0 API documentation' and optional filtering by section. Distinguishes from siblings like listSBChartAPIs (list all) and getSBChartAPIDetail (detail).

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?

States when to use (keyword search) and filtering options. Includes a warning about code generation guidelines but lacks explicit when-not or comparison to alternatives.

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