Agent Knowledge MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavioral purpose (seeking human guidance) but lacks details about implementation specifics like how the request is presented to users, response format expectations, or any limitations. It adequately describes the core behavior but misses operational details.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and usage guidelines. Every word serves a clear function with zero redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and usage context well. However, it could benefit from more behavioral details about how the interaction works since there's no annotation coverage. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but no extra value.

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 ('ask user for advice') and resources ('when agent encounters uncertainty, problems, or needs guidance'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on human interaction rather than system operations like 'ask_mcp_advice' or data management tools in the sibling list.

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 ('when you're unsure about something or need human input to proceed properly'). It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by focusing on human advice rather than automated solutions, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'ask_mcp_advice'.

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