list

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 does well by describing capabilities, details available for windows (IDs, bounds, off-screen status), and server information. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, or potential side effects of listing operations. The description is informative but could be more comprehensive about behavioral constraints.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Capabilities, Use Cases) and uses bullet points effectively. However, it includes version information ('PeepIt MCP 1.0.0-beta.1 using openai/gpt-4o, ollama/llava:latest') that doesn't add value for tool selection. The core content is front-loaded and efficient, but could be slightly more concise by removing the version details.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and provides concrete examples. However, without an output schema, the description could better explain what information is returned for each item_type, particularly for server_status which is mentioned but not detailed in the examples.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about fuzzy matching for app names and provides concrete examples of parameter usage, but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Lists various system items on macOS, providing situational awareness' and specifies three distinct capabilities: listing running applications, application windows, and server status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'analyze' and 'image' by focusing on listing rather than analysis or image capture.

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 usage guidelines through 'Use Cases' section with concrete examples showing when to use each item_type. It distinguishes between different scenarios: checking if an app is running, finding specific windows for capture, and getting server status. The examples clearly demonstrate appropriate parameter configurations for each use case.

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