buddy-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It does not state whether this is read-only analysis, what format answers take, destructive potential, or rate limits. The metaphorical language obscures rather than reveals behavior.

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, the second sentence 'The answer is already inside you' wastes space with philosophical fluff that earns no functional value for an AI agent. The parenthetical '(global)' and tag '[Buddy Tool]' create structural clutter without compensatory clarity.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description remains incomplete. It fails to explain what 'seeking the oracle' actually entails (analysis, prophecy generation, code review?) leaving critical gaps in the operational picture.

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% ('The file or code to look at'), establishing baseline 3. The description adds no additional parameter context (syntax details, examples, constraints) 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?

The description '[Buddy Tool] Seek the oracle' is essentially tautological (restating the tool name 'oracle_seek') and relies on metaphor ('The answer is already inside you') rather than stating concrete actions or resources. It fails to clarify that this tool analyzes files/code despite the 'target' parameter implying so.

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?

Provides minimal implicit context via '[Buddy Tool]' tag aligning with siblings, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'buddy_talk' or 'still_point'. The '(global)' modifier hints at scope without explaining its significance.

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