ReftrixMCP

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds significant behavioral context: the specific job states (waiting/active/completed/failed), infrastructure dependency ('Requires Redis'), and data retention policy ('24 hours'). It documents the return structure which is absent from annotations.

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?

Information is efficiently front-loaded and structured: one-sentence purpose, explicit usage instruction, bulleted return values, and critical operational notes. No redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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?

Comprehensively covers the async job lifecycle (states, progress percentage, completion/failure outcomes) since no output schema exists. Includes operational constraints (Redis, retention) essential for correct deployment.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds workflow context by framing the job_id within the async polling pattern ('poll for the status'), implying repeated invocation patterns that the schema alone doesn't convey.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of an async page analysis job'), clearly distinguishing this as the status-polling counterpart to the sibling tool 'page.analyze'. It explicitly scopes the tool to async jobs, preventing confusion with synchronous 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?

Explicitly states when to use ('poll for the status') and the prerequisite workflow ('submitted with page.analyze(async=true)'). It names the sibling tool directly as the required antecedent, providing clear guidance on the tool chain.

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