mendeley-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 states the return format ('JSON array of folders with their IDs and names'), which is helpful, but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some value but 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the action and resource, the second describes the return format. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the return information into the main purpose statement.

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 simplicity (no parameters, has output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and return format adequately. However, for a library management tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention authentication context or any folder-specific constraints. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to fully describe returns, but behavioral aspects remain under-specified.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the empty parameter set. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and output. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('folders/collections in your Mendeley library'). It distinguishes the resource type from sibling tools that handle documents/catalog searches, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like 'mendeley_list_documents' beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate compared to other listing/searching tools, or any contextual constraints for folder listing operations.

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