genieacs-mcp

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds minimal context by implying data transfer ('push'), but it doesn't elaborate on risks like overwriting files, authentication needs, or rate limits. It doesn't contradict annotations, so no contradiction flag is raised, but it lacks depth beyond the structured hints.

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, concise sentence that directly states the action. However, it could be more front-loaded with clarity, as the initial phrase is somewhat vague. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the misleading aspect slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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 complexity (destructive operation with multiple parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after pushing the file, potential side effects, or error conditions, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior and outcomes.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or usage examples. Baseline score of 3 is applied since the schema adequately documents parameters without extra value from the description.

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 'Push a firmware (or any file) to a device' states a general action but is misleading. The tool name 'download_firmware' suggests retrieval, while 'push' implies sending data to the device, creating confusion about the actual operation. It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'reboot_device' or 'refresh_parameter', which involve different actions on devices.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'firmware (or any file)', but it doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate tool selection among the available options.

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