langfuse-mcp-java

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only.' as the final sentence, which directly contradicts the annotations: readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. This is a serious safety inconsistency that could lead to incorrect tool selection. The description also fails to explain the openWorldHint=true annotation.

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 three-sentence structure is appropriately concise with information front-loaded. However, the final 'Read-only.' sentence contains erroneous information that contradicts annotations, reducing the score.

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?

Lacks output schema coverage (no return value description). Combined with the contradictory safety claim and lack of behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior), the description is incomplete for safe invocation despite the input schema being well-documented.

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 100% schema description coverage (page and limit both documented), the description appropriately does not redundantly describe pagination parameters. No additional semantic context (e.g., default values, max limits) is provided, warranting a baseline score.

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 (List) and resource (score config schemas) with specific details about what configs contain (NUMERIC/CATEGORICAL/BOOLEAN constraints). While it implies bulk retrieval via 'List all', it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'get_score_config' (singular).

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_score_config' (singular) for retrieving specific configs, or when pagination is required. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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