Clink MCP Server

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 effectively describes the tool's behavior by specifying what it returns (a list of permissions with grant/deny status, API key scope, and profile type), which helps the agent understand the output format and utility. However, it lacks details on potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a bulleted list of return details that are concise and informative. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying usage and output without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, usage, and return values in detail. However, since an output schema is present, the description's detailed return explanation is somewhat redundant, though it still adds semantic clarity. A minor gap is the lack of error handling or edge case information.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. This aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools, as it avoids unnecessary repetition and adds value by explaining the return semantics.

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 ('Get the permissions granted to your API key') and the resource ('permissions'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which focus on projects, proposals, clinks, or other resources. It explicitly defines the purpose as checking what operations are allowed, making it distinct and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this to check what operations you're allowed to perform.' This directly tells the agent to invoke it for permission verification, which is a clear and actionable context without needing to reference alternatives, as no other sibling tools serve this purpose.

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