mcp-agno

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it 'returns the content' indicating a read operation, but omits critical behavioral details like content format (Markdown/HTML), error handling for invalid sections, or network/retry characteristics. Adequate but minimal safety disclosure.

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?

Extremely efficient structure: purpose front-loaded in first sentence, followed by clean Args block. Zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information not present in structured fields.

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?

Appropriately complete for a single-parameter fetch tool where output schema exists to define return structure. Documents the sole parameter thoroughly and states the core operation. Minor gap: could mention read-only safety given lack of annotations, but sufficient for invocation.

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 coverage is 0% (property lacks description), but the Args section fully compensates by documenting the 'section' parameter accepts slugs (e.g. 'agents', 'teams') OR full URLs, providing clear semantics and usage examples the schema omits.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Fetch and return') and resource ('AGNO documentation page content'). Distinguishes intent from sibling 'list_agno_sections' by focusing on content retrieval vs listing, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'search_agno_docs' in the text itself.

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?

Provides implied usage guidance through parameter specification—requires a 'section slug' or URL suggesting use when the specific target is known. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance contrasting with 'search_agno_docs' for queries or prerequisites like needing valid section names first.

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