Frontier-Compute/zcash-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully enumerates the four data categories returned (registration, policies, actions, event history), providing transparency on output content. However, it lacks information on auth requirements, rate limits, or safety characteristics (though 'Get' implies read-only).

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, efficiently structured sentence with the action verb front-loaded. The colon-separated list of data categories provides high information density with zero waste words.

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 simplicity (single required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately compensates by detailing the return structure through the four listed data categories. For a lookup tool of this scope, listing the attestation components provides sufficient context without needing explicit output schema documentation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with 'agent_id' described as 'Agent identifier'. The description mentions 'for a ZAP1 agent' which implicitly maps to the parameter but adds no format constraints, validation rules, or semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete 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 specific action ('Get'), resource ('attestation summary for a ZAP1 agent'), and scope (registration, policies, actions, event history). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_events' (general vs. agent-specific) and 'get_anchor_status' (different entity type).

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?

While the specificity of 'ZAP1 agent attestation summary' provides implied context for when to use this (agent-specific lookups vs. general event queries), there are no explicit guidelines distinguishing it from similar read operations like 'get_events' or 'get_anchor_status', nor any prerequisites mentioned.

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