Gaffer MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing authentication requirements ('Requires a user API Key'), where to obtain it, and the return format ('list of projects with their IDs, names, and organization info'). It doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or error behaviors, but covers essential operational context.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: purpose statement, return format, usage guidance, and authentication details. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage context, and authentication well. For a read-only list operation with good schema coverage, this is nearly complete, though it could mention pagination behavior or default sorting.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples or edge cases). 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 verb ('List') and resource ('projects'), specifying 'all projects you have access to' which defines scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_test_runs' or 'get_project_health' beyond mentioning the latter as a downstream use case.

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 for when to use this tool ('to find project IDs for other tools like get_project_health') and mentions prerequisites ('Requires a user API Key'). It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with all alternatives like 'list_test_runs' for different resource types.

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