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 effectively communicates mutation risks: 'Altered output causes tracking drift' and 'corrupts discovery records and can trigger false extinctions'. It also reveals game mechanic context (streak-tracking minigame, accumulator, easter egg detection) essential for understanding side effects.

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 five-sentence structure is front-loaded with purpose ('View the BuddyDex') followed by role context, critical handling instructions, and consequence warnings. While dense, each sentence earns its place by conveying necessary game-mechanic constraints; no sentences are wasted on tautology.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately specifies the return content (the BuddyDex collection) and provides crucial handling instructions ('preserve collection integrity') necessary for successful invocation. It sufficiently covers the simple parameter-less operation.

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 zero parameters required, the baseline score of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on behavioral instructions rather than inventing non-existent parameters, correctly matching the empty input schema.

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 'View' and resource 'BuddyDex', immediately clarifying this retrieves the collection of 'discovered species'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like export_buddy_card (which exports assets) or pet_buddy (which interacts), establishing it as the read-only retrieval operation.

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?

The description provides explicit behavioral constraints critical for correct invocation: 'Relay the exact output as returned' and warns that 'paraphrasing breaks the accumulator'. While it doesn't name sibling alternatives, it clearly defines the handling requirements that distinguish it from other tools.

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