DollhouseMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool retrieves 'health status and statistics,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify details like response format, potential errors, or performance characteristics. This is adequate for a simple tool but lacks depth for full transparency.

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, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second adding context. Every sentence earns its place by providing clear value without unnecessary details, making it efficient and well-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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic understanding. It explains what the tool does and its purpose, though it could benefit from more detail on output format or error handling to be fully comprehensive.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate, but since there are no parameters, it meets the baseline expectation without extra effort.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('health status and statistics for the collection cache system'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_build_info' or 'portfolio_status', which might also provide system health information, so it falls short of 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?

The description implies usage by stating it 'helps monitor cache performance and identify any issues with offline browsing capability,' providing some context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among sibling tools, such as whether 'get_build_info' might offer overlapping functionality.

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