mcp-resonance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation ('Check') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what the response looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with clearer context. No waste, but room for slight improvement in structure.

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 abstract nature of the tool, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'resonance/harmony' means operationally, how results are interpreted, or behavioral context. For a tool in a complex ecosystem with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is unnecessary here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is needed.

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 states the tool's purpose as checking for a state of resonance/harmony where patterns strengthen each other, which is clear but somewhat abstract. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the resource ('system'), but doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'harmony_metrics' or 'detect_emergent_patterns' that might involve similar concepts.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference any sibling tools. Usage is implied through the abstract purpose but lacks practical direction.

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