get_mcp_install_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states it 'gets' (read operation) and describes the exact content returned. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, permissions, or rate limits. For a simple read operation, the description is honest but not exhaustive.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's action and output, with no filler or unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description adequately explains that it returns a config snippet and documentation. It could add details about return format or error behavior, but this is not essential given the low complexity. The description is complete enough for typical use.

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%, with the 'id' parameter well-described by its own schema entry. The description's 'by ID' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it correctly falls at the baseline of 3.

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: retrieving the exact claude_desktop_config.json setup snippet and documentation for a given MCP server ID. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('setup snippet and documentation'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_mcp_servers or get_boost_status.

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 usage context is implied: when the agent needs the installation configuration for a specific MCP server with a known ID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 4 or 5, but the purpose itself implies when to use it.

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