refinore-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool stops a session but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, potential side effects (e.g., loss of progress), or error conditions (e.g., if no session exists). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and uses a second sentence efficiently to clarify parameter usage. Both sentences earn their place with zero wasted words, making it highly concise 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 complexity of a destructive operation (stopping a session) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or return values, which are essential for an agent to use this tool effectively in context.

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 the optional 'session_id' parameter. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the optionality and default behavior ('stops active session if omitted'), but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema specifies.

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 ('Stop') and resource ('an active ORE mining session'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'start_mining' or 'get_mining_session'. It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 clear context for usage ('Optionally specify a session ID, or stop the current active session'), indicating when to use parameters vs. default behavior. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., no mention of prerequisites like needing an active session).

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