Block MCP 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. It mentions sending a reply but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what constitutes a 'reply' versus a regular message. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. The formatting with 'Args:' section is helpful, though slightly more polished structure could achieve perfection.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks important context about behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and how it differs from similar tools, making it only minimally adequate.

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 description provides clear semantic meaning for both parameters ('chat_id: The ID of the user to reply to' and 'text: The message to send back'), which is valuable given the 0% schema description coverage. While it doesn't explain format details like chat_id being an integer, it successfully conveys the purpose of each parameter.

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 ('sends a reply') and target ('to a specific user/chat ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'send_telegram_message', which appears to serve a similar function, preventing a perfect score.

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 like 'send_telegram_message'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or how it differs from similar tools, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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