Persistent Shell MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it lists 'all active workspaces,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what 'active' means. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 tool's low complexity (0 params, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It states what the tool does but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like return format or usage context. For a simple list tool, it meets basic needs but could be more complete.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 params, as the schema fully handles the lack of parameters without requiring description compensation.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all active workspaces'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_output' or 'execute_command' that might also retrieve workspace information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'create_workspace' and 'destroy_workspace' available, there's no indication of whether this should be used for discovery before creation/deletion or as a standalone query. No explicit when/when-not instructions are present.

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