CDP MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the effect ('forces fresh scan next time'), which adds some behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose critical traits such as whether this operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how it handles errors. For a tool that likely mutates state, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes essential context. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information, making it highly concise and 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 likely involves mutation (clearing memory) and has no annotations or output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, or return values, making it adequate but incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of clearing site memory and the consequence ('forces fresh scan next time'), which goes beyond the schema's description of the 'domain' parameter. With 100% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is high, and the description provides useful context without needing to detail parameters.

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 action ('Clear site memory') and the target resource ('for a domain'), specifying the verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_site_info' or 'cdp_site_scan', which might have related but distinct purposes, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 by mentioning 'forces fresh scan next time', suggesting it should be used when a fresh scan is needed, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cdp_site_scan' or 'cdp_site_info', nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites.

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