refinore-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions launching an auto-mining session, which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens if mining is already running, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 action, and every sentence earns its place by clarifying the purpose and scope. There is no wasted verbiage, making it 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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation to start mining), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to cover important aspects like what the tool returns (e.g., session ID, status), error conditions, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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% (the single parameter 'strategy_id' is fully described in the schema as 'ID of the strategy to start'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, merely restating that it uses 'the strategy's predefined parameters' without detailing them.

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 ('Start mining') and resource ('using a saved strategy'), specifying it launches an auto-mining session with predefined parameters. It distinguishes from generic 'start_mining' by focusing on saved strategies, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'create_strategy' beyond the 'start' vs 'create' verb distinction.

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 you have a saved strategy and want to initiate mining with its parameters, suggesting context over alternatives like 'start_mining' (which might not use saved strategies). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'start_mining' or prerequisites (e.g., strategy must exist), leaving some ambiguity.

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