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. The description mentions it's for listing countermeasures, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., pagination details). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and basic usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence could be slightly more polished (e.g., 'Use this to see countermeasures associated with a project, rather than get_project which returns project details').

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 complexity (listing with filtering parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and distinguishes from one sibling, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, output format, or pagination. For a tool with filtering parameters and no structured output documentation, more context would be beneficial.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'risk_relevant' means or provide examples for 'status'). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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: 'List all countermeasures for a project.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('countermeasures'), and distinguishes it from get_project by noting it returns countermeasures rather than project details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other countermeasure-related tools like get_countermeasure or update_countermeasure.

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 some guidance by stating 'Use this to see countermeasures associated with a project, not get_project which returns project details.' This gives a clear alternative to avoid (get_project) but doesn't specify when to use this versus other countermeasure tools like get_countermeasure (for a single countermeasure) or update_countermeasure. The guidance is helpful but incomplete regarding sibling differentiation.

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