armavita-quo-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a list operation, which implies it is read-only and non-destructive, but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination. The description adds some context about the purpose 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?

The description is two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a helpful usage note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, 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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for a read-only list operation. It explains what the tool does and its utility, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like response format or limitations. The lack of output schema means the description does not cover return values, which is a minor gap.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied for tools with no parameters, as there is nothing to compensate for.

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 ('List all custom contact fields') and resource ('defined in the workspace'), with details on what information is returned ('name, key, type'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_contact' or 'list_contacts' by focusing on metadata about custom fields rather than contact data itself.

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 ('Useful for understanding what custom data is tracked on contacts'), which implicitly suggests it should be used before or in conjunction with contact-related operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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