Kratos-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'using best practices' which hints at some quality standard, but doesn't explain what those practices are, what format the output takes, whether this is a read-only or write operation, or any performance characteristics like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 clear sentence that states the core function. It's appropriately concise without being overly terse, though it could potentially be more front-loaded with additional context about the tool's specific domain or use cases.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the structured prompt output looks like, how the parameters combine, or provide any examples of usage. The description leaves too many open questions about the tool's behavior and output.

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 all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about what the parameters represent or how they interact beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the 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 'builds a structured prompt using best practices', which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity about what kind of prompt or for what context. It doesn't clearly distinguish this from potential sibling tools that might also involve prompt construction or manipulation.

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 any prerequisites, constraints, or suggest when this tool is appropriate compared to other tools in the server that might handle prompts, context, or memory operations.

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