Solafon MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'sends a message', implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., message ID returned). This is inadequate for a tool that modifies state without structured safety hints.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists supported features. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from features) for optimal clarity.

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 complexity of a state-modifying tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, response format), usage constraints, and error scenarios, leaving the AI agent with significant gaps despite the comprehensive input schema.

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 all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing supported content types ('text, buttons, images, and card carousels'), which loosely maps to the 'type' parameter and hints at 'buttons' and 'cards', but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('send a message') and specifies the source ('from the bot') and target ('to a user in a specific conversation'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'edit_message' or 'delete_message'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other messaging tools (none present in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 mentions 'Supports text, buttons, images, and card carousels', which implies usage for different message types, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'edit_message' for updates, 'delete_message' for removal) or any prerequisites like required permissions. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to infer correct usage.

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