Corpus 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. The word 'Add' implies a write operation, but the description discloses nothing about side effects, validation rules, idempotency, or the nature of the output (despite an output schema existing).

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 single-sentence structure is efficient and front-loaded, but inappropriately terse given the tool's complexity (4 required parameters, mutation behavior, no annotations). It wastes no words but leaves critical information omitted.

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 4-parameter mutation complexity, complete lack of schema descriptions, and absent annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the domain model (what constitutes an emergency fund contribution) or parameter semantics needed for successful invocation.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter guidance. The agent receives no information about expected date formats, currency units for amount, or expected values for 'source' and 'notes'.

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 states the basic action (add) and resource (emergency fund contribution) using specific verbs, but fails to distinguish this tool from the generic `add_transaction` sibling or clarify when to use this specific tool versus other asset-tracking tools.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `add_transaction`, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether an emergency fund must be initialized first) or workflow context.

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