madagascar_explain_scope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The description is honest about what it does (explains) and doesn't claim any side effects. However, it doesn't disclose what the output will look like (e.g., a text summary, a list of sources, etc.) or any limitations. It's a simple informational tool, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Explain' and the resource. It is concise and to the point, with no wasted words. It earns a 5 for efficiency.

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 that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete for its purpose. It tells the agent what the tool does and hints at its role in the broader MCP (combining sources). It could be slightly more explicit about the output format, but for a zero-parameter informational tool, it's adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously, since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose, so a 4 is justified.

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 purpose: to explain what the MCP is useful for and how an agent should combine its sources. It uses a specific verb ('explain') and identifies the resource (the MCP's utility and source combination). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all data-fetching tools, by being a meta/guidance tool.

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 when to use this tool: when an agent needs an overview of the MCP's capabilities and how to combine sources. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (all data-fetching) makes the usage context clear. It could be improved by explicitly stating 'use this first to understand the MCP before using other tools.'

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