mdma

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 adds useful context like the source URL, allowed paths, and default branch, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. It adequately describes the operation but misses some behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential details in subsequent clauses. Every sentence adds value—specifying allowed paths and defaults—with zero waste, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (fetching files from a repo), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, source, allowed paths, and defaults, but could improve by mentioning the return format (text contents) or potential errors. It's adequate but has minor gaps.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the default branch for 'ref' and examples for 'path', but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 specific action ('Fetches the latest version'), resource ('MDMA documentation file'), and source ('public GitHub repo'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list-docs' (which lists files) or 'get-prompt' (which fetches prompts). It precisely defines what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 clear context on when to use this tool by specifying allowed paths ('any entry from list-docs, plus any *.md file under "docs/" or "blueprints/"'), which implicitly guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'get-prompt' for prompt files.

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