CDP MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is for 'debugging site memory behavior', which hints at a read-only, diagnostic purpose, but doesn't specify whether it requires specific permissions, has side effects, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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 highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a brief usage hint. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 has no parameters (simplifying input) but no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and a use case, but for a debugging tool that might return complex epoch data, more details on output format or behavioral constraints would improve completeness.

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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't attempt to explain non-existent inputs.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current epoch info'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_site_info' or 'cdp_site_scan', which might also provide debugging information about sites.

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 implied usage guidance by stating it's 'Useful for debugging site memory behavior', suggesting it should be used in debugging contexts. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to other debugging-related tools in the sibling list.

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