lv_cyber_about

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It accurately states the action (returns metadata) and enumerates the return fields. It does not mention any side effects or network dependencies, but for a metadata endpoint this is adequately transparent.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb 'Return', concise list of contents. Every word earns its place. No redundancy or fluff.

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 (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. Complete for its complexity level.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. The absence of parameters is clear from the schema, and the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Return' and identifies exact resource (metadata about this MCP server) with concrete contents (version, data source, coverage, tool list). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that search/get guidance or advisories.

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?

Implied usage is clear: use when you need server metadata. No explicit exclusions or alternatives named, but given the sibling tools are all content-focused, context is sufficient. Lacks a direct 'when not to use' statement, so not a 5.

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