portkey-admin-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this operation has side effects. The description is minimal and doesn't provide sufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted language, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more context about when to use this versus other guardrail operations.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what format the 'detailed information' returns, what 'checks and actions configuration' entails, or any behavioral considerations. The absence of annotations means the description should do more heavy lifting, but it remains quite minimal.

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% with the single parameter 'guardrail_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 verb ('retrieve') and resource ('specific guardrail') with specific details about what information is included ('detailed information... including its checks and actions configuration'). It distinguishes from sibling 'list_guardrails' by focusing on a single guardrail rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other guardrail-related tools like 'create_guardrail' or 'update_guardrail'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'get_guardrail' versus 'list_guardrails' (for retrieving multiple guardrails) or other guardrail operations like 'create_guardrail', 'update_guardrail', or 'delete_guardrail'. There's no context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases.

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