mcp-astgl-knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what data is returned but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and output format. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output details.

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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description should provide more complete context about behavioral aspects. While it adequately describes what the tool does, it lacks information about return format details, error handling, performance characteristics, or limitations. For a tool with minimal structured data, the description doesn't compensate sufficiently.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the empty parameter set. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is correct for a parameterless tool. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 action ('List all topics') and resource ('ASTGL knowledge base'), with specific details about what information is shown (article titles, descriptions, URLs, section headings). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_answer' and 'search_articles' by focusing on comprehensive topic listing rather than specific answers or filtered searches. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings in the text itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_articles' or 'get_answer'. It doesn't mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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