Shepherd MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation (likely, but not stated), whether it has pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'page' parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (no output schema). The description adds some context about API vs. client-side filtering but misses essential behavioral traits.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and key criteria, and the second adds context about filtering types. There's no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with essential information. A perfect score would require more comprehensive guidance without sacrificing brevity.

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 (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It adequately explains what the tool does but fails to provide sufficient context on usage guidelines, behavioral aspects like pagination or safety, and output expectations. For a search tool with many parameters and no structured output information, more detail is needed to help an agent use it effectively.

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 minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema. It lists examples of criteria (text search, release, cost range, latency range) which are covered in the schema descriptions. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema already documents all 14 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples for parameters.

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: 'Search and filter traces with extended criteria including text search, release, cost range, and latency range.' It specifies the verb (search/filter) and resource (traces) with examples of criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'langfuse_list_traces' or 'langfuse_search_sessions,' which would be needed for a perfect 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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions that it 'combines API-level and client-side filtering,' which hints at its capabilities but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'langfuse_list_traces' (which might be for simpler listing) or 'langfuse_search_sessions' (for different resources). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.

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