my-design MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions support for version filtering and pagination, which are useful behavioral details. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, rate limits, or what format the changelog data returns in. The description adds some context but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences: one stating the purpose and use cases, and another describing parameter support. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The use cases are presented in a clear numbered list format.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides good purpose and usage guidance but lacks important behavioral context. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally explain more about what the tool returns and any operational constraints. It's adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions '支持按版本号过滤和分页' (supports version filtering and pagination), which aligns with the 'version' and 'page' parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic information beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with specific verbs ('查询' - query) and resources ('my-design 组件库的变更日志和迁移指南' - changelog and migration guide for my-design component library). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on changelog queries rather than component details, examples, listings, searches, or theme tokens.

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 explicitly lists three use cases: 1) understanding version updates, 2) finding breaking changes and migration methods, and 3) troubleshooting version upgrade issues. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like component_search or component_details.

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