NOUZ MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'Format' implies a transformation, but the description fails to state whether this modifies the entity in-place, returns a formatted string, requires specific permissions, or handles errors. No mention of output format, side effects, or rate limits.

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?

While brief (5 words), this represents under-specification rather than efficient communication. The single sentence fails to earn its place because it conveys no actionable information beyond the tool name itself, violating the principle that every sentence should add value beyond structured fields.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is radically incomplete. It omits critical context such as return value structure, error conditions, whether the operation is destructive, or what 'compact' formatting entails compared to standard formatting.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the 'path' parameter, the description must compensate by explaining what the path refers to (file system? entity ID? hierarchical path?). It provides no such clarification, leaving the agent uncertain about the expected input format or valid values.

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 'Format compact entity structure formula' essentially restates the tool name (format_entity_compact) with minor word substitution, making it tautological. While 'Format' is a specific verb, 'compact entity structure formula' is jargon-heavy and fails to clarify what resource is being formatted or how this differs from siblings like read_file or write_file.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings include read_file, write_file, and various entity operations (get_children, suggest_parents), the absence of differentiation criteria forces the agent to guess when formatting is appropriate versus reading or modifying entities.

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