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. It discloses that this is a listing operation for saved strategies, which implies read-only behavior, but does not mention potential limitations like pagination, sorting, or error conditions. It adds basic context about what strategies are but lacks richer behavioral details.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and add only essential clarifying information about what strategies are. Every sentence earns its place without waste or redundancy.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and context of strategies, but for a listing tool, it could benefit from mentioning output format or any behavioral constraints to be more complete.

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 lack of inputs. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than redundant parameter information.

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 specific action ('List all') and resource ('saved auto-mining strategies'), with additional context about what strategies are ('define reusable mining configurations'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_strategy' or 'create_strategy' by focusing on retrieval rather than execution or creation.

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 when needing to view saved strategies, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_mining_history' or 'get_mining_session'. It provides clear context for listing configurations but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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