mcp2term

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 states the action but doesn't describe what happens (e.g., whether input is buffered, if it blocks, error conditions like invalid command_id, or side effects). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that interacts with running processes.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, 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 tool's moderate complexity (interacting with running commands) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description doesn't address behavioral nuances or parameter meanings, leaving gaps in understanding how to use it 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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'command_id' refers to, what 'data' should contain, or the meaning of 'eof' (likely 'end-of-file'). This leaves all three parameters semantically unclear beyond their schema types.

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 ('Forward input') and target ('to a running command's stdin pipe'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_command' or 'cancel_command', which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'run_command' or 'cancel_command'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a running command), exclusions, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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