Select Glitch Title

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond implying a verification step. It does not clarify the state change or outcome of selection, and no behavioral traits beyond annotations are disclosed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence of 13 words with zero waste. Every word serves a purpose.

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, annotation-rich tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It mentions a prerequisite but lacks explanation of what happens after selection or the tool's role in the MCP process lifecycle. A minor gap.

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% for the single parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Select' and resource 'title' within the MCP process context. It mentions a prerequisite (after verifying access) but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like glitch_list_titles or glitch_get_title_context.

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 implies that access verification must precede this tool's use, but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Siblings like glitch_list_titles are not mentioned as alternatives.

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