Kratos-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 only states the action ('fetch') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a fetch operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a fetch operation that likely returns content, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'PRD' entails, the format of returned content, or any prerequisites, leaving too many gaps for effective use by an AI agent.

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 both parameters ('feature' and 'path') documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between these parameters (e.g., if they're mutually exclusive or how they interact). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool fetches PRD content, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what 'PRD' stands for (likely Product Requirements Document) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'prd_update' or content-fetching tools like 'concept_get' or 'memory_get_recent', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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. It doesn't mention when to use 'feature' vs 'path' parameters, or how it differs from similar tools like 'prd_update' for updates or 'concept_get' for other content types, offering no context for selection.

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