mcp-builder-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it requires email validation before sending, uses environment variables (SENDER_EMAIL, GOOGLE_APP_PASSWORD), and returns success or error messages. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs beyond env vars, or detailed error handling.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: prerequisites, parameter details, and implementation notes. It could be slightly more concise by combining some details, but there's minimal waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete for a 3-parameter tool. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral aspects like env vars and returns. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of success/error messages) and doesn't fully address all potential edge cases.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning for all parameters: email must be validated, repo_url is optional and defaults to last upload if omitted, and description is optional for the email body. This covers semantics beyond the basic schema, though it could specify format constraints like email validation rules.

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: 'send the repo URL to the user's email via Gmail' after a GitHub upload. It specifies the verb ('send'), resource ('repo URL'), target ('user's email'), and method ('via Gmail'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like upload_to_github or get_workflow_status.

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 guidelines: 'Call this only after the user has confirmed their email is correct' and 'after a successful GitHub upload.' It also implies an alternative by noting that repo_url is optional and can be retrieved from 'get_stored' if omitted, though it doesn't name specific sibling alternatives.

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