NewsDigest 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 but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data vs. plain text), error conditions, or performance implications. The description is too vague to guide the agent effectively beyond the basic action.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no wasted space or redundant phrasing.

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 TypeScript symbol definition tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'definition' (e.g., source code location, type details), how results are returned, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks critical context for effective use.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters like 'root', 'filePath', and 'symbolName' without needing duplication in the description.

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 ('Get') and resource ('definition(s) of a TypeScript symbol'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_symbols_in_scope' or 'get_type_at_symbol', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes 'definitions' from other symbol-related queries.

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 like 'find_references' or 'get_type_at_symbol'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a TypeScript project setup) or typical use cases (e.g., debugging vs. documentation), leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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