NewsDigest MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics, whether it reads from disk or memory, or what the output format looks like (diagnostics structure).

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 without unnecessary words. Every element ('Get TypeScript diagnostics', 'errors, warnings', 'for a single file') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 diagnostic tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what diagnostics include (e.g., line numbers, severity levels) or how virtualContent overrides file reading, leaving gaps for effective agent usage.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining interactions between filePath and virtualContent). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get TypeScript diagnostics') and resource ('for a single file'), with precise scope covering errors and warnings. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_definitions or get_type_at_symbol by focusing on diagnostic analysis rather than type or definition lookup.

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 implies usage for TypeScript file diagnostics but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_type_at_symbol for type queries or find_references for symbol tracking. No guidance on prerequisites, file formats, or exclusion cases is provided.

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