buddy-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and excels: it reveals output wrapping in <BUDDY_DISPLAY> tags, mandates exact character-for-character relay, warns of personality drift and session-end corruption consequences, and establishes the guardian role 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 four-sentence structure progresses logically from action to output format to critical handling instructions to consequences. While the guardian/poetic framing adds slight verbosity, every sentence conveys essential behavioral constraints.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers output formatting, handling requirements, and failure consequences for this session-end tool. It could improve by explicitly stating invocation timing relative to sibling interactions.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4 per evaluation rules. No parameter description is required or provided.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Deactivates' and clear resource 'buddy observation mode', distinguishing it from interaction siblings like pet_buddy and buddy_talk. It clearly signals this is a session termination tool rather than an interaction or export function.

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?

While the 'farewell' and 'parting words' context implies this is used when ending interaction, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over continuing with buddy_talk or still_point. No prerequisites or alternatives are named.

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