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 this is a read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover other aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' specifically include. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, 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 extremely concise with just two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted verbiage or 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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the purpose and provides some usage guidance, but lacks details on behavior, return values, or how parameters interact. Without an output schema, the agent won't know what 'details' are returned, which is a notable gap.

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 already documents all parameters (project_id, page_size, include, expand). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'include' or 'expand' affect the returned details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get details') and resource ('project'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from other project-related tools like 'list_projects' or 'update_project' beyond mentioning 'list_countermeasures' for countermeasures.

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 explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool ('Use list_countermeasures to see countermeasures for a project, not this tool'), which helps differentiate it from one sibling. However, it doesn't mention when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_projects' or 'update_project' for broader context.

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