MCP Spine

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool affects tool visibility ('re-routes which tools are visible'), which is useful behavioral context, but it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation-like operation.

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 front-loaded and concise with two sentences that directly explain the tool's function and effect, with no wasted words or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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 (a single parameter with full schema coverage) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose and usage. However, it could improve by addressing potential side effects or error cases to be fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'task' parameter. The description implies the parameter's purpose ('what you are currently working on') but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Tell the Spine what you are currently working on') and resource ('re-routes which tools are visible'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'spine_recall' by focusing on context-setting rather than recall 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('what you are currently working on'), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'spine_recall' for comparison, which limits it from a perfect score.

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