MCP Framework Documentation Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function and usage context but lacks details on behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or response format. The description doesn't contradict any annotations, but it's minimal in behavioral information beyond the basic 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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage guidelines without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core function and follows with practical advice, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more context, but it's adequate for a simple list tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'section' documented as 'Filter to a specific section's children by section name.' The description doesn't add any additional meaning or details about parameters beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'List the documentation structure showing all sections and their page counts.' This specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('documentation structure'), and output details ('sections and their page counts'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_page' or 'search_docs' beyond mentioning discovery before searching, which is implied but not direct comparison.

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 for usage: 'Use this to discover what documentation is available before searching.' This indicates when to use the tool (for discovery prior to searching) and implies an alternative (use 'search_docs' after discovery). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name the sibling tools as alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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