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. It mentions 'combines API-level and client-side filtering' which provides some implementation insight, but doesn't cover important aspects like pagination behavior (implied by limit/page params), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'client-side' filtering entails operationally.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key differentiators. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 10-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and filtering approach context. However, it lacks information about return format, result ordering, error handling, and the practical implications of 'client-side filtering' which would be important for proper tool selection and usage.

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 marginal value by grouping parameters conceptually ('text search, user ID, trace count range, and cost range') and distinguishing API vs. client-side filters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the parameter descriptions.

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 with specific verbs ('search and filter sessions') and resources ('sessions'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 'extended criteria' and 'combines API-level and client-side filtering' which differentiates it from simpler list/search tools in the sibling set.

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 'extended criteria' and the combination of filtering approaches, suggesting this is for more complex session searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. simpler alternatives like 'langfuse_list_sessions' or 'search_sessions' from the sibling tools.

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