mavis_coder_agent

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 comprehensively covers key behaviors: iterative tool calling, exclusion of itself (recursion guard), realtime progress notifications, and persistence to ~/.mavis-mcp/agent-sessions/. It also reveals the default doctrine (B-6) exposing all tools. This is rich behavioral transparency for an agent-loop tool.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then details key behavioral aspects. The list of invocable tools is somewhat redundant with "ANY mavis_* tool" but provides concrete examples. Every sentence contributes value, and the length is reasonable for the tool's complexity.

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 complex agent-loop tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: how the loop operates, what tools are exposed, progress notifications, persistence, and the recursion guard. It doesn't discuss potential failure modes or typical use-case scenarios, but the core functionality is well documented.

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 all 10 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters; it focuses on tool behavior rather than parameter specifics. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't go beyond it.

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 tool's function: "Run a multi-step agent loop where MiniMax-M3 can call ANY mavis_* tool ... iteratively until the task is done." It explicitly names the resource (mavis_* tools) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the orchestrator that invokes them. It also provides specifics like recurrence guard and persistence, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you want the LLM to autonomously decide which tools to call in a multi-step loop. It states "Default doctrine (B-6): ALL tools are exposed to the LLM — including non-LLM ones. The LLM is the one that decides which to call." It also notes exclusions (recursion guard). However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or direct comparison to calling individual tools directly.

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