buddy-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral weight. It adds useful format context (SVG) and scope ('full' vs sprite), but omits critical safety information: whether it overwrites existing files, blocking vs async behavior, or filesystem requirements. 'Export' implies a write operation but lacks safety disclosures.

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?

Single sentence, nine words. Every word earns its place: action (Export), scope (your full buddy card), format (SVG). Perfectly front-loaded with no redundancy or waste.

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?

Appropriate for a single-parameter tool with no output schema. Covers core function and format, but absent details on what data appears on the card, error states (invalid paths), or sibling differentiation would elevate this to completeness.

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%, establishing baseline 3. The description mentions the export action but adds no specific guidance about the path parameter (e.g., relative vs absolute paths, directory creation behavior) beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Excellent specificity: 'Export' (verb), 'full buddy card' (resource), 'SVG image file' (format). The 'full' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tool export_buddy_sprite, indicating this includes stats/data whereas the sibling likely exports just the visual sprite.

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 prefer this over export_buddy_sprite or prerequisites (e.g., does the buddy need to be active?). The description stands alone without contextual selection criteria.

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