Solafon MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get messages') without detailing traits like read-only nature (implied but not explicit), pagination behavior (hinted by 'before' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for such a basic statement.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool with 3 parameters (including pagination via 'before'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., message format, ordering), behavioral aspects like pagination, or how it fits with siblings (e.g., 'list_conversations' to get IDs). For a read operation in a conversational context, more guidance is needed.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters (conversationId, limit, before). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'before' enables pagination or typical use cases for 'limit'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the basic purpose ('Get messages in a specific conversation') which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'messages' with scope 'in a specific conversation', but doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_conversations' or provide details about what 'messages' entails (e.g., text, metadata, ordering). This is adequate but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a conversation ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_conversations' for broader context or 'send_message' for related actions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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