SD Elements 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get details' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, the response format, error conditions, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get details'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to conveying the tool's purpose.

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 of a 'get' operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, the return format, or behavioral aspects like safety or errors. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to guide the agent 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'report_id' documented as 'ID of the report'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Get details of a specific advanced report' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('advanced report'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'details' entail and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_advanced_reports' (which likely lists reports) or 'run_advanced_report' (which likely executes it), leaving room for 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing report ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_advanced_reports' for browsing or 'run_advanced_report' for execution, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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