mcp-builder-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns information ('Return the current workflow step...'), implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't specify behavioral traits like error handling, response format, or whether it updates any state. It adds some context about tracking progress but lacks details on how the 'current step' is determined or if it's dynamic.

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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage, followed by a bullet-like list of the tool order. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 complexity (a workflow status tool with no parameters but no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but without annotations or an output schema, it doesn't detail the return format (e.g., what 'current workflow step' looks like) or potential errors. This is adequate but could be more informative for an agent.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied since it avoids redundancy and focuses on the tool's purpose and usage.

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: 'Return the current workflow step and the required order of tools.' This specifies the verb ('Return') and resource ('current workflow step and required order of tools'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'reset_workflow' which might also relate to workflow state.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to keep the user/agent on track.' It also lists the specific order of tools (1-6), which implicitly defines when to use this tool—to check progress against that sequence—and distinguishes it from alternatives like individual step tools. This is comprehensive guidance for context.

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