mcp-server-getalife

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by mentioning that suggestions are 'personalized' based on life situation and include 'typical allocation percentages,' which provides context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or response format details.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and key features, and the second provides clear usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and front-loaded with essential information.

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 (6 parameters, 1 required) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and usage well, but lacks details on output format or behavioral constraints like response structure or limitations. Since there's no output schema, this gap is notable, but annotations provide sufficient safety context to keep it above minimum viable.

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 parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, as it only implies personalization based on 'life situation' without detailing how parameters interact. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('suggests personalized budget categories') and resources ('budget categories with typical allocation percentages'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on category suggestions rather than analysis, auditing, or planning. It explicitly mentions the grouping into Needs, Wants, and Savings, which adds specificity.

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 when someone wants to know what budget categories they should have or how to organize their expenses.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like analyze_budget or create_budget_plan, which serve different purposes in the budgeting workflow.

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