Koleo MCP Server

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. It only states 'List all available' without indicating if the data is static or real-time, if there are rate limits, pagination behavior, or cache considerations. The scope ('all available') is mentioned but not explained.

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 consists of a single efficient sentence with parenthetical examples that add value without verbosity. There is no redundant or filler text; every word serves the purpose of defining the tool's scope.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is adequate. However, it falls slightly short by not clarifying the relationship between 'brands/operators' and the sibling 'tool_get_carriers' concept.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, which according to the calibration baseline earns a score of 4. The input schema confirms this with an empty properties object, and the description correctly implies no filtering is needed by stating 'List all'.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('train brands/operators'), with concrete examples (IC, REG, EIC, KM) that clarify the domain. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'tool_get_carriers', which could cause confusion since 'operators' and 'carriers' are often synonymous.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, particularly 'tool_get_carriers'. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or suggest when this list is necessary (e.g., for filtering connections).

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