Sendly

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds that execution happens in an 'isolated sandbox' and constrains the program to 'short', plus points to server instructions for the contract—useful context beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail what gets destroyed or execution limits.

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 the action, and no redundant text. The second sentence is a pointer to server instructions, which is brief but does not add much beyond direction.

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 complex, destructive, open-world code-execution tool, the description is minimal: it gives sandbox isolation and a discovery hint but omits execution limits, failure behavior, and the contract details, deferring to server instructions. With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 single 'code' parameter is fully documented in the schema (program body, external_* functions, must return result). The description adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond the schema, 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 specific verb ('Run'), resource ('TypeScript program'), and scope ('orchestrates Sendly MCP tools in an isolated sandbox'). It also names the sibling search_tools as the discovery mechanism, distinguishing this tool from simple tool 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?

Implies usage by saying tools are 'found via search_tools' and the program orchestrates them, but does not state explicit when-to-use vs when-not or name alternatives. No prerequisites or conditions are given; it defers to server instructions.

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), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: results are connection-scoped and delivered as TypeScript declarations. It stops short of describing result shape or limits, but the added context is substantive.

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 with zero filler; the purpose and return format are front-loaded before the pointer to external docs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, scope and format adequately for a one-parameter discovery tool. The reliance on 'server instructions' for the full contract is a minor external dependency, but nothing essential to invoking the tool 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the case-insensitive substring match and the omit-to-return-all behavior. The description adds nothing about the query parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 (Find) plus a precisely scoped resource (the Sendly MCP tools this connection can reach) and even the return format (TypeScript declarations). It clearly separates itself from the sibling execute_typescript by framing itself as the discovery step whose output feeds that tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'returned as TypeScript declarations to call from execute_typescript' hints at the discover-then-execute workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative. The deferral to 'server instructions' leaves the agent to infer the contract.

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