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 mentions that the tool 'Get[s] a system metric from Pharo using NeoConsole,' implying a read operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, what happens on errors, or the format of the return value beyond 'The metric value.' This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage, leaving key behavioral traits unclear.

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, followed by parameter and return details in a structured format. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's function and usage. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the example directly into the parameter explanation.

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 complexity (a tool interacting with a system like Pharo via NeoConsole), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or dependencies, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context or trial-and-error.

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 some meaning beyond the input schema: it explains that the 'metric' parameter is 'The metric to retrieve' and provides examples ('e.g., 'system.status', 'memory.free''). However, with schema description coverage at 0%, the description doesn't fully compensate—it doesn't detail allowed metric names, constraints, or how to discover available metrics. The baseline is 3 because the schema lacks descriptions, and the description adds partial but incomplete param info.

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 a system metric from Pharo using NeoConsole.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('system metric'), and context ('from Pharo using NeoConsole'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'evaluate_smalltalk_with_neo_console' or 'get_method_source'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'get_neo_console_command_history', which might also retrieve data from NeoConsole.

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 for selecting this tool over other metric-related or Pharo tools, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for real-time monitoring, debugging, or how it differs from other data retrieval tools in the sibling list.

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