pharo-nc-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a comment but does not describe behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the class doesn't exist), performance considerations, or output format details. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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, with the main purpose stated first in a clear sentence. The additional sections for 'Args' and 'Returns' are structured efficiently, though they could be more integrated. There is no wasted text, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks details on usage context, error handling, or output specifics. This is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.

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 minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'class_name' is 'The name of the class to get the comment for,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides basic context but lacks details like format expectations or examples, resulting in an adequate but not comprehensive explanation.

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: 'Get the comment of a Pharo class.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('comment of a Pharo class'), making the action and target explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_class_definition' or 'get_method_source', which reduces clarity in distinguishing similar retrieval 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to choose 'get_class_comment' over 'get_class_definition' or other sibling tools. This absence leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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