refinore-mcp

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 strategies can be started later, hinting at a multi-step process, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a write operation (implied by 'Create'), what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a useful context note. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at usage but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or return values. This is the minimum viable for a creation tool, but gaps remain in transparency and completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create a new auto-mining strategy') and the resources involved ('with a name and mining parameters'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_strategies' or 'start_strategy' beyond mentioning that strategies can be started later, which is helpful but not a full differentiation.

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 usage by stating 'Strategies can be started later with start_strategy,' which suggests a workflow context, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_mining' or 'list_strategies.' No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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