flyte-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search scope but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or output format. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 zero waste, front-loading the core functionality. It uses clear language without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter explanations. The presence of an output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall, it's adequate with clear room for improvement.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies keyword-based searching but doesn't explain the 'query' parameter's syntax or the 'limit' parameter's effect. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3 due to the lack of detailed parameter semantics.

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's purpose as 'Keyword search over Flyte V2 symbol names, signatures, docstrings,' specifying the verb (search), resource (Flyte V2 symbols), and scope (names, signatures, docstrings). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_flyte_symbol' or 'list_flyte_symbols' by emphasizing search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for keyword-based searching, but it doesn't mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or how it differs from siblings like 'list_flyte_symbols' or 'get_flyte_symbol,' leaving the agent to infer context.

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