mcp_select

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and only establishes that the tool does not execute anything. It says nothing about how selection happens (LLM/gateway, determinism, latency, token cost), what fallback behavior means, or what the result looks like.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler and the core function front-loaded, which is good. But for a 13-parameter tool the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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?

A 13-parameter selection tool with no annotations and no output schema needs far more: at minimum what the output is (a ranked/filtered tool list?), how budget and relevance thresholds interact, and what happens on fallback. The description covers only the headline purpose.

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 0% across 13 parameters, and the description only vaguely gestures at two of them ('budget de contexte' hints at budget_tokens; 'pertinents' hints at relevance/query). max_tools, min_relevance, llm_prefer, gateway_model, gateway_provider, allow_fallback, scope, failed_tool_id and the permission filters are entirely unexplained anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Selectionne des outils MCP pertinents') plus a scope qualifier ('sous un budget de contexte') and a negative clarification ('N'execute aucun outil'). The purpose is unmistakable, though there are no siblings to differentiate from.

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?

'N'execute aucun outil' rules out one misuse (expecting execution), which is the only usage guidance present. There is no statement of when to prefer this over direct tool invocation, nor any prerequisite about supplying a tools array or query.

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