AGS Extend SDK 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. It explicitly mentions pagination behavior, shows how the tool responds to different parameter combinations, and describes what information is returned (description, imports, example, fields, parameters, return_type). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 with clear sections (purpose statement, usage patterns, recommended workflow). It's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters and a sibling. Some sentences in the workflow section could be more concise, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 has an output schema (mentioned in context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It provides excellent context about how to use the tool, when to use it versus alternatives, and what information will be available. For a read-only tool with good schema coverage and output schema, this description is complete and helpful.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it shows usage patterns with specific values but doesn't explain parameter meanings or interactions beyond what the schema already states. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Describe multiple symbols with pagination.' It specifies the verb ('describe') and resource ('symbols'), and mentions pagination as a key feature. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'search-symbols' beyond the workflow section.

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 excellent usage guidance through 'Usage Patterns' showing concrete examples with different parameter combinations, and a 'Recommended Workflow' section that explicitly positions this tool after 'search_symbols' and before analysis. It clearly indicates when to use this tool (for detailed symbol information after searching) versus its sibling (for finding symbols).

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