SD Elements MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets details' without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, error handling, or rate limits. It's minimally informative for a tool that likely fetches data.

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, front-loading the core action ('Get details'). It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, earning its place without redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' includes, potential return values, or error cases, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'diagram_id'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond implying it's for a 'specific diagram', but with 0 parameters needing extra explanation, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from schema clarity.

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 diagram' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('diagram'), but it's vague about what 'details' entails and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_project_diagrams' or 'get_project'. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

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 such as 'list_project_diagrams' for multiple diagrams or 'get_project' for broader project information. The description implies usage for a single diagram but offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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