Pathfinder 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. It discloses that the tool creates a file (plan.md template) and has a prerequisite (research completion), but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what 'transition' entails behaviorally. It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers limited behavioral insight.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key details and parameter info. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (phase transition with a prerequisite), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics, but could benefit from more behavioral details, though the output schema reduces the need to explain 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?

The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'session_id' is a 'Session ID', though this is minimal. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the baseline is high, and the description compensates adequately by clarifying the parameter's role.

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: 'Transition from research to plan phase' and 'Creates plan.md template'. It specifies both the action (transition/creates) and the resource (plan.md template), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'save_plan' or 'start_research'.

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 usage: 'Requires research to be complete' indicates a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings, such as when to use 'save_plan' instead.

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