RSpace MCP Server

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 discloses the tool is for retrieval (read-only) and returns a 'complete template definition', which adds useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits, which are important for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage and return details in two clear sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and return scope adequately. Minor gaps include lack of error cases or permissions info, but these are less critical for a simple retrieval tool.

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%, but the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema implies (a 'template_id' is required). It doesn't explain the parameter's format, constraints, or examples, leaving gaps despite the single parameter. The baseline is adjusted to 3 due to the presence of an output schema, which reduces the need for param details.

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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('detailed information about a sample template'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_sample_templates' (which likely lists templates) and 'create_sample_template' (which creates them). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_sample' (which retrieves sample data), leaving minor ambiguity.

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 clear usage guidance with 'Examine template structure before using for sample creation', indicating when to use this tool (pre-creation analysis). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'list_sample_templates', but the context is sufficiently clear for effective tool selection.

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