LearnMCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Start background processing' implies an asynchronous operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens if processing is already running, whether it's idempotent, what the expected completion time might be, or how to monitor progress. This is a significant gap for a tool that initiates background work.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and clear basic functionality.

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 tool that initiates background processing with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'background processing' entails, what happens to the processed sources, how to check results, or what the expected outcomes are. Given the complexity of background operations and lack of structured documentation, more context is needed.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'project_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 ('Start background processing') and target ('pending learning sources for a project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_processing_status' or 'add_learning_sources', which would require more specific scope definition.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_processing_status' (for checking status) or 'add_learning_sources' (for adding sources). There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or when this operation is appropriate versus other available tools.

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