Metis — Link Claude Desktop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (registering a project) and conditional behavior based on the 'write_config' parameter (write directly vs. return instructions). However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions required, or what happens if the project ID already exists.

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 highly concise with no filler. It opens with a clear purpose statement followed by a structured argument list. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting is easy to parse.

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 simple tool with two parameters and an output schema (not shown but present), the description is mostly complete. It explains both parameters and the conditional output. Missing minor details like error states or idempotency, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds complete semantics: 'project_id' is identified as 'The Metis project ID to register' and 'write_config' is explained with its conditional effect. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action: 'Register a Metis project in Claude Desktop's project list.' The verb 'register' combined with the resource 'Metis project' and target 'Claude Desktop's project list' provides a specific and unambiguous purpose, distinguishing it from other project-related tools like create or load.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'connect_project_folder' or 'create_project'. It provides basic parameter explanations but lacks context on prerequisites, expected usage scenarios, or conditions where manual setup is preferred. Usage is implied but not clearly differentiated.

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