ReftrixMCP

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing what data is returned (styles, bounding boxes, etc.) and implicitly confirming safety through 'sanitized HTML snippet' in parameter descriptions. It does not contradict 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?

The bilingual format efficiently serves both Japanese and English contexts without verbosity. The structure is front-loaded: first sentence states the action, second lists specific return values. Every clause provides distinct information (scope, identifier type, data categories).

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the specific data fields returned (styles, HTML, bounding box, etc.). Combined with strong annotations covering safety properties, the description provides sufficient context for invocation, though it could briefly note this is for detailed analysis versus overview.

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 appropriately 3. The description mentions HTML and Embedding in the return value list, which semantically connects to the include_html and include_embedding flags, but this is redundant with the already-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?

The description uses specific verbs ('取得します' / 'Inspect') and resources ('UIコンポーネントパーツ' / 'UI component part'), clearly targeting retrieval of detailed component data. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'part.search' (which finds parts) by emphasizing inspection 'by ID' and lists specific return values (styles, HTML, bounding box, interaction info, embedding status).

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 through the phrase 'by ID' and the detailed return value list, suggesting it's for deep inspection of known components. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'part.search' (for discovery) or 'part.compare', leaving agents to infer the workflow.

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