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 for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool returns '可直接复制使用的示例代码' (ready-to-copy example code) and covers common scenarios, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description provides some context but leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently communicate the tool's purpose and value. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds important context about the quality and scope of returned examples. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 single-parameter tool with good schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what the tool returns (example code covering common scenarios) but doesn't address format, structure, or potential limitations of the output. Given the complexity level, it's minimally viable but leaves room for more complete guidance.

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 schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'componentName' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (which explains it accepts component names like Button, Input, Table and supports aliases). This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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), resource ('my-design 组件的代码示例' - my-design component code examples), and scope ('覆盖组件的常见使用场景' - covering common usage scenarios). It distinguishes itself from siblings like component_details or component_search by focusing on ready-to-use example code rather than metadata or search functionality.

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 implies usage context by mentioning '可直接复制使用的示例代码' (ready-to-copy example code) and covering common scenarios, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like component_details for documentation or component_search for discovery. No explicit exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are provided.

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