ReftrixMCP

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent operations. The description adds what gets extracted (sections, grid, typography) but omits significant behavioral details present in the schema, such as the optional Vision API integration for visual analysis and CPU-intensive processing options.

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, front-loaded with the core action. Efficiently worded without filler, though arguably too terse given the tool's complexity and multiple input modes.

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 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to enumerate parameters, but it should mention the dual input methods (ID vs HTML) and Vision API capability given their functional significance. No output schema exists, yet the description does not hint at return structure.

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 baseline is adequately met. The description maps loosely to the extraction options (detectSections, detectGrid, analyzeTypography) but does not clarify the mutual exclusivity relationship between 'id' and 'html' inputs or the nested visionOptions configuration.

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 tool parses HTML and extracts specific layout elements (sections, grid, typography). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like layout.ingest or layout.search, which may also process HTML but for different purposes (storage vs. 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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus layout.ingest, layout.search, or page.analyze. No mention of prerequisites for the 'id' parameter (WebPage from DB) versus direct 'html' input, or when to enable the Vision API option.

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