avizo-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it is a factual summary, reinforcing safety and scope.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, includes cross-references to siblings. No wasted 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?

Lacking output schema, but the description enumerates coverage areas (tracks, alerts, escalation, integrations, billing, GDPR), fully informing what the response will contain.

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; baseline 4. Description correctly omits any parameter details.

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 provides a product overview of Avizo and lists specific topics covered. It distinguishes from siblings by directing to avizo_plans for pricing and avizo_docs for documentation.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (for factual summary/overview) and when not to (for pricing or docs, use siblings). No ambiguity.

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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: categories include default alert lead times, custom categories can be added, and display names are Romanian. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail return format or pagination. No contradiction 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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose: 'All document/obligation categories Avizo tracks out of the box.' However, the parenthetical examples make it slightly dense and harder to parse quickly. It is concise but could be better structured with bullet points or separate sentences.

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 input schema (one optional parameter), no output schema, and annotations covering safety traits, the description provides all necessary context. It explains the naming convention, examples per group, default alert lead times, and customizability. This is fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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?

The input schema provides full coverage (100%) with a clear description and enum for the 'group' parameter. The description adds value by listing examples of what each group contains (e.g., vehicles: ITP, RCA), helping the agent select the right group value. This enriches the schema beyond the baseline.

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 tool returns all document/obligation categories tracked by Avizo, including their Romanian display names, default alert lead times, and the ability for custom categories. This provides a specific verb ('list' implied) and resource, and distinguishes the tool from siblings like avizo_docs (documents) or avizo_my_items (items).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like avizo_docs or avizo_plans. It implies usage for retrieving category metadata, but lacks guidance on context or exclusions. The purpose is clear enough, but no usage instructions are provided.

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 that the tool returns markdown content and lists available pages, which is consistent. 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The two modes are front-loaded clearly, and the example is helpful. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description completely explains behavior. Combined with annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the agent has all needed information to use the tool 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% for the single parameter. The description adds meaningful context: explains that no argument triggers a list, while a slug fetches a specific page, and provides an example. This adds 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 the tool lists documentation pages without arguments and fetches a specific page with a slug. The verb 'list or fetch' combined with 'User documentation' precisely defines the resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like avizo_about or avizo_plans.

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 explicitly explains when to use no argument (to list all pages) vs. a slug (to fetch a page), and gives a usage example. Sibling tools cover different domains (about, categories, plans, my_items), so no need for exclusion.

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 (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive), the description adds critical behavioral info: it never invents data, and without a valid API key it returns instructions for creating one. This fully discloses error-handling 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?

The description is four sentences, each adding essential value: what the tool returns, API key requirement, fallback behavior, and read-only guarantee. No fluff, well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema, good annotations), the description covers key aspects: output fields, auth requirement, error behavior. Could mention pagination or ordering but is largely complete.

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 schema already describes the single parameter with 100% coverage. The description doesn't add new information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 the tool returns 'OWN tracked documents' with specific fields (days-to-expiry, urgency, recommended action), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like avizo_about or avizo_docs. The verb 'return' and resource 'tracked documents' are precise.

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 notes that the tool requires an API key and explains what happens without it (returns instructions). While it doesn't explicitly compare to siblings, the 'OWN' qualifier implies it's for the authenticated user's items, providing implicit guidance.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: null fields indicate unlimited or custom pricing, and data is generated from the application's enforced definitions. 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 and key details. Every sentence provides value: first sentence states what the tool returns, second sentence explains the data source and null semantics. No wasted 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?

Given no output schema and zero parameters, the description fully covers what the tool returns (four plans, prices, limits, alert channels, feature lists) and how to interpret nulls. No gaps for an agent to misunderstand.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of null values for max_items, max_users, and price_monthly_eur, which is critical for interpreting results.

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?

Description explicitly names the four subscription plans and lists the specific details (prices, limits, channels, features) returned, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like avizo_about or avizo_my_items. The verb 'generated' indicates retrieval rather than action.

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 retrieving plan information but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., avizo_about for general info, avizo_categories for categories). No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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