mayotte_explain_scope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It clearly states the tool is explanatory (read-only in nature), but it doesn't explicitly confirm no side effects or any additional behavioral details like return format. For a zero-param explanation tool, the risk is low, but the description could be more explicit about what 'explain' entails (e.g., returns a text summary).

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?

One concise sentence that captures both the purpose and the guidance. No fluff, front-loaded with the primary action.

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 tool with no parameters announced and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does and hints at how to use it (combining sources). There are no complex behaviors or missing parameter details to compensate for.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. No additional semantics are needed.

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: 'Explain what this MCP is useful for and how an agent should combine its sources.' This is a specific verb+resource (explain scope) that distinguishes it from sibling lookup/search tools. It's unambiguous and not a tautology.

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?

It implies when to use it: when an agent needs to understand the overall MCP's utility and how to combine sources. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear for a meta-orientation tool. Sibling tools are data retrieval, so this stands out as guidance.

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