Shepherd MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the search/filter functionality, it doesn't describe important behaviors like pagination approach (implied by 'limit' parameter but not explained), return format, sorting behavior, error handling, or performance characteristics. For a search tool with 10 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the criteria list, but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words. Every element serves a purpose in conveying the tool's scope.

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?

For a complex search tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'session' represents in this context, what data is returned, how results are structured, or important behavioral aspects like pagination. The agent would need to guess about the return format and many operational details.

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 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it lists the criteria categories but doesn't provide additional semantic context like how 'query' search works (fuzzy vs exact), how labels filtering behaves, or date format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Search and filter') and resource ('AI agent sessions'), and lists specific criteria (text search, labels, provider, etc.) that distinguish it from simpler list tools. It clearly communicates this is a multi-criteria search tool rather than a basic listing function.

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 through the listed criteria (e.g., 'when you need to filter by provider, model, or errors'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aiobs_list_sessions' or 'list_sessions'. No guidance is provided about when NOT to use it or specific prerequisites.

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