lemon-squeezy-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, pagination behavior beyond the 'page' parameter, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The mention of 'optionally filtered' and 'page' parameter hints at some behavior but is insufficient for a mutation-free tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('List files') and succinctly adds filtering details. Every part earns its place.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., read-only nature, pagination details), usage differentiation from siblings, and output expectations. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data.

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 all three parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by 'product or variant', which aligns with 'productId' and 'variantId' parameters, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or interdependencies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('files'), and specifies optional filtering capabilities. It distinguishes from 'get_file' (singular retrieval) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list_* tools like 'list_products' or 'list_variants' that might return related resources.

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 mentions optional filtering by product or variant, which implies when to use those parameters, but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over other list_* tools (e.g., 'list_products' for product metadata vs. 'list_files' for files). No exclusions or alternatives are specified.

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