Kratos-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at a preview function (non-destructive) but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, how results are returned, or any rate limits. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'preview' means in practice, what format results take, or how this differs from actual context injection tools. The agent would lack critical context for effective use.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'budget_bytes' and 'top_k', or provide examples for 'mode' enum values. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles documentation adequately.

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 'Preview context injection for current task' clearly states the tool's function (previewing context injection) but is somewhat vague about what 'context injection' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'context_rules_get' or 'memory_search'. It provides a basic verb+resource combination but lacks specificity about the scope or mechanism.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'context_rules_get' or 'memory_search', leaving the agent without clear direction on appropriate usage contexts.

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