mcp-resonance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Clear all observations and patterns', which implies a destructive action, but doesn't specify whether this is reversible, requires permissions, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that appears to reset data, leaving the agent with incomplete safety and operational 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the action and its utility. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any redundant or verbose language, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 apparent complexity (resetting data) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but omits critical behavioral details like confirmation prompts or result format. This leaves gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively in a session context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully handles the parameter aspect, and the description doesn't add unnecessary details.

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 ('Clear') and the target ('all observations and patterns'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'detect_emergent_patterns' or 'observe_ecosystem_state', which might involve similar concepts, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 implied usage guidance by stating it's 'useful for starting a new session', which suggests a context for use. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, such as when not to use it or how it compares to other tools like 'record_ecosystem_moment', so it's not fully comprehensive.

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