blackmount-nlp-mcp

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 the algorithm (RAKE) and that it finds multi-word key phrases, but doesn't describe output format, performance characteristics, limitations, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 brief and to the point with two concise sentences. It efficiently explains what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration, though it could be slightly more informative about the algorithm's characteristics.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and only 2 parameters, the description provides basic purpose but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. For a keyword extraction tool among many text processing siblings, more differentiation would be helpful, but the output schema reduces the burden.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. However, with only 2 parameters (text and top_n) and an output schema present, the baseline is 3 as the description doesn't add value but the parameter count is low.

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 tool's purpose: 'RAKE keyword extraction (Rapid Automatic Keyword Extraction). Finds multi-word key phrases.' It specifies the verb ('extraction'), resource ('keywords'), and method ('RAKE'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'extract_tfidf_keywords' beyond mentioning the RAKE algorithm.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention the sibling 'extract_tfidf_keywords' or explain when RAKE extraction is preferable over TF-IDF or other methods, leaving the agent without usage context.

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