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 implies a read-only operation ('Get') and describes the scope ('complete survey structure'), but does not address potential behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The description adds basic context but lacks depth 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 in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance in the second. Both sentences are essential—the first defines the tool, and the second prevents misuse by distinguishing it from a sibling. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it clarifies purpose, usage, and sibling differentiation. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., response structure, error handling), which would be beneficial for full contextual understanding. It compensates well but has minor gaps.

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 'project_id' documented as 'ID of the project'. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 specific verbs ('Get the complete survey structure') and resources ('for a project'), explicitly mentioning what it retrieves ('all available questions and ALL possible answers'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_survey_answers_for_project' by contrasting scope (structure vs. selected answers), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 usage guidance: it specifies when to use this tool ('to see what survey questions exist and what answers are available') and when to use an alternative ('Use get_survey_answers_for_project to see only the answers that are currently selected for a project'). This clearly delineates the tool's context and prevents confusion with the sibling.

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