zcode_mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that 'list' and 'status' start configured MCP servers as a side effect, that started instance ids are reported, that 'servers' avoids starting anything, and that config edits require an environment variable and a restart. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking the 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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then the critical warning, then the safer alternative, then the config-edit requirement. Every sentence carries operational weight, and there is no filler.

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 multi-action tool with no annotations and a complex anyOf schema, the description covers the most consequential behaviors and prerequisites. It is not fully complete because it does not enumerate every action (e.g., add_server, remove_server) or clarify all action-specific parameters, but the schema supplies those constraints and the description adds the missing behavioral 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 coverage is high, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds important action-specific meaning beyond the schema: it explains the side effects of 'list' and 'status', the non-starting behavior of 'servers', and the environment requirement for config edits. It does not explain the workspace, server, scope, name, or spec parameters, which leaves some semantic gaps.

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 a specific verb set (Inspect and manage) and a specific resource (ZCode's MCP client surface), which is enough to distinguish it from most siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with zcode_settings or other zcode_* tools, so it falls short of a perfect sibling-differentiating statement.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'list' and 'status' start servers, while 'servers' reads configuration without starting anything. It also states the prerequisite for config edits (ZCODE_MCP_ALLOW_MCP_CONFIG_EDIT=1 and a restart), leaving little to inference for the critical actions.

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