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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all advanced reports' implies a read-only operation that returns multiple items, but it doesn't specify whether this includes pagination, sorting, filtering, or what format the results take. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 - just four words that directly convey the core operation. Every word earns its place: 'List' specifies the action, 'all' indicates scope, and 'advanced reports' identifies the resource. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.

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 that this is a list operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'advanced report' in this context, what fields are returned, whether results are paginated, or how this differs from other list operations like 'list_applications' or 'list_projects'. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is correct for zero-parameter tools where the description focuses on the operation itself rather than parameter details.

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 'List all advanced reports' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('advanced reports'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_advanced_report' (which likely retrieves a specific report) or 'run_advanced_report' (which likely executes a report), so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.

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 when this list operation is appropriate compared to 'get_advanced_report' for retrieving a single report or 'run_advanced_report' for executing one. There's no context about prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or typical use cases.

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