Is Dirty

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context by defining 'dirty' as 'unsaved memory changes or external disk changes' and clarifying that it reports the MCP's knowledge state. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Return whether') and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, boolean-returning tool with an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does. It covers both types of changes and the 'MCP knows' qualifier, making the purpose clear without missing relevant 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter meanings, which are irrelevant here. No parameter documentation 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 a specific verb ('Return whether') and a precise resource: whether the MCP knows the loaded board has unsaved memory changes or external disk changes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that save, reload, or discard changes.

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 implies usage as a status check before save/reload operations but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no direct guidance such as 'Use before reloading' or 'Use to detect external modifications before saving.'

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