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. It describes the core functionality but lacks details about response format, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is accurate but minimal in behavioral context.

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 communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.

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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the response structure or behavioral characteristics to be truly complete.

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%, with the single parameter 'category' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, maintaining the baseline score appropriate when schema documentation is complete.

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 ('List') and resource ('all available MCP tools'), specifying what information is included ('with descriptions and categories'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_symbols_in_scope' or 'get_definitions' by focusing on tool metadata rather than code analysis.

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 discovering available tools, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to other tools in the context of tool discovery workflows.

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