RAGFlow MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '创建一个新的聊天助手' clearly indicates a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, what happens if creation fails, or what the expected response format is. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core functionality immediately apparent.

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 creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what gets created (beyond '聊天助手'), what the creation process entails, what happens on success/failure, or what the agent should expect as a result. The description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered for a tool that modifies system state.

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 both parameters completely. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions '基于指定的数据集' which corresponds to dataset_id, but provides no extra context about dataset requirements, format, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 action ('创建一个新的聊天助手' - creates a new chat assistant) and the resource ('基于指定的数据集' - based on specified dataset). It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'chat' which might be for interacting with existing assistants rather than creating new ones.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this creation operation is appropriate, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'chat', 'list_datasets', or 'retrieve'. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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