Perplexity Comet MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the file must exist locally and describes auto-detection behavior for the selector parameter, but doesn't cover error conditions, permissions needed, or what happens after upload. It provides some behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage context and a critical constraint. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, making it highly efficient 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?

For a file upload tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks details about return values, error handling, or system requirements. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in behavioral transparency.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning the file must exist locally and auto-detection behavior for selector, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('upload a file') and resource ('to a file input on the current page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like comet_screenshot or comet_tabs. It specifies the exact use case for attaching files to forms, posts, or upload dialogs.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('to attach images, documents, or other files to forms, posts, or upload dialogs'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools. It implies usage scenarios without explicit exclusions.

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