TeamSpeak MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention permissions required, rate limits, whether the message is logged, if delivery is guaranteed, or error conditions, leaving critical operational details unspecified.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a messaging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, response format, error handling, and differentiation from siblings, which are essential for effective tool use in this context.

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 fully documents both parameters (client_id and message). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, resulting in the baseline score for high 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 action ('send') and target ('private message to a user'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'send_channel_message', which handles a different message type but shares the same core verb, leaving room for potential confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_channel_message' or 'poke_client'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., user must be online), exclusions, or typical use cases, offering minimal operational direction.

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