ReftrixMCP

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

While annotations declare readOnly/idempotent status, description adds critical behavioral details: 'JSON format' output, 'PII fields are explicitly marked' data handling, and 'all related data' scope—though it omits export file retention/delivery mechanics.

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?

Bilingual format efficiently serves both Japanese and English users without redundancy. Three sentences: legal basis, technical scope/format, and PII handling—each earning its place with zero waste.

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 high-stakes GDPR compliance context, description adequately covers legal basis, output format, and PII handling. No output schema exists, but 'JSON format' partially compensates. Minor gap regarding export file security or retention policies.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents 'page' vs 'profile' distinctions and UUIDv7 format. Description references 'page/profile' generally but adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description explicitly states 'GDPR Art.20 Right to Data Portability' as the legal basis and function, uses specific verb 'Exports' with resource 'all related data for the specified target', and distinguishes from sibling 'data.delete' by emphasizing export/portability versus deletion.

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?

Provides clear contextual trigger via 'GDPR Art.20' indicating when to use (data portability requests), but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives like 'preference.get' for simpler data retrieval.

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