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 doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error conditions, or output format. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys the core purpose with zero waste. Front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by scope qualification. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context, output expectations, and usage guidance. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description should do more given the complexity.

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 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'all symbols (variables, types, functions, etc.)' with specific scope 'visible at a specific location in a TypeScript/JavaScript file'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_module_symbols' (module-level) and 'get_type_at_symbol' (type-specific) by emphasizing location-based visibility.

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 context (TypeScript/JavaScript file analysis) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_module_symbols' for module-level symbols or 'find_references' for symbol usage tracking. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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