Boxtalk Data MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, performance implications (e.g., impact on large tables), authentication needs, error handling, or return format details. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get the total count') and efficiently specifies the resource ('records in a SQL Server table'), making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, potential performance issues), return value format (e.g., integer count, error responses), and usage context relative to siblings. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, the description should provide more operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'table' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of table naming conventions beyond the schema's note). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Get the total count') and resource ('records in a SQL Server table'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_table_data (which retrieves actual data) and get_table_structure (which describes schema). It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 for counting records in a table, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_data (which might also support counting) or get_table_data. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with sibling tools.

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