mdk-docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. The description adds the four operation types but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects (e.g., whether searches modify state). The description is consistent with annotations, adding minimal value beyond them.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It is concise with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing operations) for easier scanning, but still effective.

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 tool with six parameters and four modes, the description is minimal. It does not explain when to use each operation, return value expectations (no output schema), or how folderRootPath affects behavior. It is adequately complete given the rich schema, but additional context would improve selection and 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%, meaning the tool tip in the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only provides a high-level overview. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic burden.

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: 'Unified tool for accessing MDK documentation including search, component schemas, property details, and examples.' It uses specific verbs ('accessing') and resource ('MDK documentation'), and differentiates from sibling tools (mdk-create, mdk-gen, mdk-manage) by focus on documentation. No explicit sibling differentiation, but the naming and brief description suffice.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selecting among the four operations. With siblings like mdk-create and mdk-manage, the agent receives no help choosing this tool over others.

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