Metro Logs 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 effectively describes key behaviors: it 'runs a health check' and 'will auto-reconnect if needed.' However, it doesn't specify error handling, timeout behavior, or what constitutes a 'healthy connection,' leaving some operational details unclear.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states purpose and usage guidelines, the second explains behavioral traits. Every sentence adds value with zero redundant information, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (connection management with health checks), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and key behaviors. However, it lacks details on return values or error conditions, which would be helpful since there's no output schema to provide that 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 specific verbs ('verify or establish a healthy connection') and identifies the target resource ('React Native app'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect_metro' by emphasizing health verification and auto-reconnection capabilities, not just connection establishment.

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: 'before running commands if connection may be stale, or after navigation/reload.' It also implicitly suggests alternatives by indicating this is for health verification and reconnection, distinguishing it from initial connection tools like 'connect_metro' or status-checking tools like 'get_connection_status'.

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