mdma

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns a catalog with specific fields (path, title, description) from a public GitHub repository. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior, which would be valuable for a read operation.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains what the tool does and what it returns, the second explains when to use it. There is zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool returns (catalog with path, title, description) and its relationship to other tools. However, without an output schema, additional details about the return format structure would be helpful for completeness.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and usage.

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 ('Returns the catalog'), resource ('MDMA documentation files'), and scope ('available for fetching from the public GitHub repo'). It explicitly distinguishes from its sibling 'get-doc' by explaining this tool is for discovery while 'get-doc' is for fetching specific documents.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this to discover what docs you can pass to get-doc') and names the alternative tool ('get-doc') for the subsequent action. This clearly establishes the workflow relationship between these two tools.

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