Kratos-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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('link') but doesn't explain what linking entails (e.g., is it a persistent association, does it require permissions, are there side effects like updates to other data). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a mutation 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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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?

Given the complexity of linking operations (likely a mutation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'link' means behaviorally, potential impacts, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate 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 documents both parameters ('concept_id' and 'local_tags') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage context for parameters, meeting the baseline for 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 action ('link') and the resource ('global concept to the current project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'concept_save' or 'memory_save', which might involve similar concepts, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'concept_save' and 'memory_save' that might handle related operations, there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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