agentdesk-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses key behavioral traits: dual adversarial assessment, independent angle review, merge agent arbitration, and strict OR-logic failure condition. Missing operational details like timeout behavior, cost implications (2x inference), or exact return structure, but covers the essential business logic.

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?

Three sentences total with zero waste. First sentence defines mechanism, second explains behavioral logic/comparison, third gives usage context. Front-loaded with the core concept 'Dual adversarial review'. Every clause earns its place.

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 100% schema coverage and moderate complexity, description adequately explains the review process and verdict logic despite lacking output schema. Mentions 'merged verdict' indicating return value nature, though exact output structure could be clearer. Sufficient for correct agent invocation.

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% (output, criteria, review_type, model all documented). Description mentions 'output' generally but does not add syntax details, validation rules, or examples beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score appropriate given schema completeness.

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?

Description opens with specific mechanism 'two independent reviewers assess... then a merge agent combines' and explicitly contrasts with sibling tool via 'Stricter than single review', clearly differentiating from review_output. Uses precise verbs (assess, combine, merge) and identifies the resource (output/findings).

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use for high-stakes outputs where quality is critical') and defines the critical failure condition ('if either reviewer finds a critical issue, the merged verdict is FAIL'), providing clear decision criteria for agent selection over single review alternatives.

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