ReftrixMCP

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. Description adds valuable behavioral context: parallel execution model, unified result aggregation, and real-time streaming capabilities. However, it omits mention of database persistence side effects (evident in schema saveToDb defaults), which is relevant given the read-only annotation.

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?

Three sentences with zero redundancy: (1) core capability, (2) implementation architecture, (3) protocol feature. Front-loaded with specific actions and sibling references. Every clause earns its place in guiding tool selection.

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 15 complex nested parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It mentions 'returns unified results' but provides no structure, fields, or shape guidance. For a tool of this complexity with no output schema, additional guidance on return value structure would significantly improve completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. Description adds invocation context by referencing '_meta.progressToken' for streaming, which is not a schema parameter but protocol metadata relevant to usage. No additional parameter-specific guidance is provided, but none is needed given comprehensive schema documentation.

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 the tool performs 'layout detection, motion pattern extraction, and quality evaluation' on a URL, and crucially distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it 'Executes layout.ingest, motion.detect, and quality.evaluate in parallel.' This composite positioning makes the orchestration purpose unambiguous.

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?

Implies this is the convenience tool for comprehensive analysis by mentioning parallel execution of three specific sibling tools. Mentions MCP streaming support via _meta.progressToken. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer individual tools (e.g., for single-domain analysis or resource constraints) versus this composite tool.

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