buddy-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet offers nothing about state mutation (does it pause the buddy permanently?), return values, authentication requirements, or side effects. The word 'Stop' suggests potential state change, but safety profile and reversibility are undisclosed.

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 brief (one line), but the poetic phrasing ('Let the answer come to you') wastes limited space on thematic flair rather than functional clarity. '[Buddy Tool]' earns its place as domain context, but the remaining text prioritizes style over actionable information.

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 single parameter and lack of output schema, the description should at minimum explain the tool's effect and return behavior. Currently, it provides insufficient information for an agent to predict outcomes or handle responses, failing to compensate for missing annotations.

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% (target parameter fully described as 'The file or code to look at'), establishing baseline 3. The main description adds no parameter-specific context (e.g., optional vs required nature, path formats), offering only the schema's existing definition.

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 uses metaphorical language ('Stop. Be still. Let the answer come to you') that fails to clearly define what the tool actually accomplishes. While '[Buddy Tool]' contextualizes it within the buddy system (aligning with sibling tools like pet_buddy), the core function—whether it pauses a process, retrieves static analysis, or enters a meditation state—remains ambiguous.

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 is provided on when to invoke this tool versus siblings like oracle_seek, buddy_talk, or view_buddy_dex. The '(global)' tag hints at scope but doesn't clarify prerequisites or conditions where still_point is preferred over alternatives.

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