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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it returns a list of standardized status choices across all projects, clarifies it returns possible statuses not specific ones, and mentions the return format ('list of possible statuses'). It doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, but covers core behavior adequately.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage examples and differentiation from siblings. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it efficiently covers all necessary information in a compact form.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and behavioral context. A minor gap is lack of explicit mention of return format details (e.g., array structure), but for this low-complexity tool, it's largely sufficient.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and usage.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('complete list of ALL available task status choices'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by contrasting with get_countermeasure for specific statuses. It provides concrete examples of status values like 'Complete', 'Not Applicable', etc.

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 to use this tool (e.g., when users ask 'What task statuses are available?', 'What statuses can I use?', etc.) and when not to use it (for a specific countermeasure's status, use get_countermeasure instead). It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool get_countermeasure.

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