armavita-quo-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the user ID is invalid. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple read tool with 1 parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks output details (no output schema provided) and behavioral context, which could be important for an agent. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'userId' documented as 'User ID (US...)'. The description adds that it's for 'a specific user by ID', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional meaning like format examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific user by ID'), and specifies the returned fields (email, name, role, picture). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_users' by focusing on a single user, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other user-related tools beyond that.

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 when you need a specific user's details by ID, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'list_users' for multiple users or other get_* tools for different resources. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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