my-design MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what information is retrieved (documentation sections) and the mandatory nature of the call, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, response format, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description adds some context about the tool's role but lacks operational details.

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?

Well-structured with two sentences: first lists what information is retrieved, second states when to use it. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. Could be slightly more concise by combining elements, but overall efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 documentation retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks information about what the response looks like, error conditions, or operational constraints. It's adequate for understanding when to use the tool but incomplete for understanding what to expect from the call.

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 documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions the same sections (props, events, rules, etc.) but provides no additional syntax, format, or usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('获取' - get/retrieve) and resource ('my-design 组件的详细文档' - my-design component detailed documentation), listing exactly what information is included (Props, Events, Rules, Behavior, When to use, Accessibility). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comprehensive documentation retrieval rather than examples, lists, search, or changelogs.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: '这是生成代码前必须调用的工具' (this tool must be called before generating code). It provides clear context about its mandatory nature in the development workflow and distinguishes from alternatives by specifying it's for confirming API and usage constraints before coding.

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