Shepherd MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is deprecated, which is useful behavioral context, but doesn't disclose what 'compare' entails (e.g., output format, whether it's read-only or has side effects, performance implications). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the deprecation warning comes first, followed by the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy, making it efficient 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 complexity (comparing sessions), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the comparison outputs, how sessions are identified, or any prerequisites. The deprecation note is helpful, but more context is needed for a deprecated tool that might still be invoked.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to explain what session_id_1 and session_id_2 represent, their format, or how they should be provided. With two required parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.

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: 'Compare two AI agent sessions.' It specifies the verb ('compare') and resource ('AI agent sessions'), and distinguishes it from siblings by indicating it's deprecated in favor of aiobs_diff_sessions. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other comparison or session-related tools beyond the deprecation note.

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 explicit usage guidance: '[Deprecated: Use aiobs_diff_sessions]' directly tells the agent when not to use this tool and names the alternative. This is clear, actionable advice for tool selection, making it optimal for this dimension.

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