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 triggers a JavaScript bundle reload, auto-connects to Metro if needed, and explains the impact (resets app state like navigation stack). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like app downtime or error handling, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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: it starts with the core action, adds important behavioral context (auto-connect, Fast Refresh note), and ends with specific usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and apply.

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 complexity (a mutation with side effects) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, behavior, and usage guidelines. However, it doesn't detail the return value or error responses, which could be useful for an agent handling edge cases.

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 focuses on usage context rather than parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 since it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 ('Reload the React Native app') and the mechanism ('triggers JavaScript bundle reload like pressing 'r' in Metro'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'connect_metro' or 'restart_http_server' by focusing on app reloading rather than connection management or server operations.

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 vs. relying on Fast Refresh: it lists three specific scenarios (logs/behavior not reflecting changes, broken app state, need to reset app state). It also clarifies when NOT to use it (since Fast Refresh handles most code changes automatically), offering clear alternatives to avoid unnecessary reloads.

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