COA Goldfish 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 mentions storage 'in current session' and TTL behavior (implied by ttlHours parameter), but doesn't disclose whether this is ephemeral vs persistent storage, permission requirements, or how memories are retrieved. For a storage tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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?

Two sentences with zero waste - the first states the core purpose, the second provides crucial sibling differentiation. Every word earns its place in this efficiently structured description.

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?

For a storage tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage guidance but lacks behavioral context about storage persistence, retrieval mechanisms, or error conditions. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Store a quick thought or note') and resource ('in current session'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'checkpoint' tool for detailed checkpoints. This provides precise differentiation from alternatives.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Store a quick thought or note') and when to use an alternative ('For detailed checkpoints use checkpoint tool instead'), providing clear guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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