mavis_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that 'get' returns recent files touched and exit codes (read operation), and 'save' forces a disk flush (write operation). This sufficiently communicates the read/write nature and key behaviors, though it doesn't mention auto-save behavior or potential side effects.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word contributes. It avoids fluff and clearly organizes the two actions. This is an exemplary concise structure.

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 simple one-parameter enum tool, the description is complete: it explains both actions, gives the use case for 'get,' and describes the effect of 'save.' No output schema exists, but the description states what 'get' returns. Minor gaps include not mentioning error conditions or auto-save behavior, but overall it's well-rounded.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with an enum description, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying what 'get' returns ('recent files touched and last exit codes') and clarifying 'save' as 'force flush state to disk,' which is more detailed than the schema's 'force flush.'

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: 'Get or update the MCP server's persistent state.' The verb+resource construction is specific, and the two actions (get/save) are explicitly distinguished. It differentiates from sibling tools (e.g., mavis_read, mavis_write) by focusing on server-wide state rather than file operations.

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 concrete guidance: 'Use "get" to see recent files touched and last exit codes' and 'Use "save" to force flush state to disk.' This effectively tells when to use each action, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or provide alternatives. Thus, clear context but no exclusions.

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