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 describes the return value ('command history as a string, showing numbered entries'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects such as potential errors (e.g., if no session exists), performance characteristics, or side effects. The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the purpose and return value without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more efficient by combining the two sentences, but overall it's highly effective with minimal waste.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the return value, which is crucial since there's no output schema. However, it doesn't address potential edge cases or errors, and with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context to fully guide an AI agent in a complex environment.

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 the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 command history from the current NeoConsole session.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('command history'), and identifies the scope ('current NeoConsole session'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'quit_neo_console' or 'shutdown_repl_session' that also interact with NeoConsole sessions, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'current NeoConsole session,' suggesting this tool is for retrieving history within an active session. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to other session-related tools like 'quit_neo_console'), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat open-ended.

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