mcp-astgl-knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'relevant article sections with source URLs for citation', which gives some context about output format. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or how relevance is determined.

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 efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output. It's front-loaded with the main functionality. However, the first sentence could be slightly more streamlined by integrating the topic scope more smoothly.

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 search tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what the tool searches and what it returns, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation or how results are ranked. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the search scope but doesn't provide additional context about how the 'query' parameter should be formulated or how 'limit' affects results beyond what the schema already states.

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: searching ASTGL articles about specific topics (MCP servers, local AI, AI automation) and returning relevant sections with source URLs. It specifies the verb 'Search' and resource 'ASTGL articles', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_answer' or 'list_topics'.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'get_answer' or 'list_topics'. The description mentions the search scope (MCP servers, local AI, AI automation) but doesn't indicate when this tool is preferred over alternatives or any prerequisites for its use.

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