armavita-quo-mcp

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 key behavioral traits: returns messages 'in chronological order' and 'with pagination', which are crucial for understanding output behavior. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but covers ordering and pagination well for a read 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key behavioral details (chronological order, pagination). Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 read operation with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and pagination adequately. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or examples, which could help given the complexity. With no annotations, it's minimally complete but leaves gaps in behavioral context.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying filtering by phone number and participants. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 ('List') and resource ('messages'), specifying the scope ('for a specific phone number and conversation participant'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_message' (singular) and 'list_conversations', but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'send_text' or other messaging tools. The purpose is specific but could better differentiate from similar tools.

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 mentioning 'phone number and conversation participant', suggesting it's for retrieving message history in a specific context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_conversations' or 'get_message', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied but not clearly guided.

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