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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'List all' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this returns all numbers at once or uses pagination, what format the output takes, whether there are rate limits, or what permissions are required. The description provides basic functionality but lacks important behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying what the tool does.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides basic functionality but lacks important context. Without annotations, it should ideally mention that this is a read-only operation, describe the output format, and provide usage guidance. The description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps that could help an agent use the tool more effectively.

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 already fully documents the single optional parameter. The description doesn't mention the 'userId' filter parameter at all, nor does it provide any additional context about parameter usage beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but adds no extra 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 action ('List all phone numbers') and resource ('in the Quo workspace'), including additional details about what information is included ('with their users and settings'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_phone_number' (singular) by indicating it returns multiple items, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_calls' or 'list_users' beyond the resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate versus using 'get_phone_number' for a specific number, or how it relates to other list tools. There's no context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases.

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