tap_expand_tools

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotation (openWorldHint: true): it notes that after calling, the server sends notifications/tools/list_changed and clients may re-query. It also mentions that higher-level calls subsume lower ones, providing useful context.

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 a single efficient paragraph with key information front-loaded. It could be slightly more concise (e.g., splitting level details), but every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameters, side effects, and behavior. It is complete for this type of tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining what each enum value does (2=creative, 3=full manual) and describing the resulting tools (like tap.click, tap.type). It also explains subsumption, which the schema does not convey.

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 tool's purpose: 'Expand this session's MCP tool set.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying what it does (expand tool set) and gives specific examples of use cases (browser actions, write-tap operations).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the default Layer-1 set is insufficient.' It provides concrete scenarios (need manual browser actions, write-tap operations) and explains levels (2 vs 3) and their implications.

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