Appo MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'provides diagnosis with solutions and code fixes', which implies a read-only, advisory function, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors such as whether it requires network access, has rate limits, returns structured or free-text output, or handles edge cases. This is a significant gap for a diagnostic tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action and scope, and the second specifies the type of response. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 complexity (diagnostic with 4 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and output type but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and return format. It's adequate as a minimal description but has clear gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and invocation by an AI agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (symptom, feature, errorMessage, platform) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or usage tips for the parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Diagnose common @appolabs/appo SDK integration issues' with the verb 'diagnose' and resource 'SDK integration issues'. It specifies the scope ('common') and the target SDK. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate_setup' or 'check_permissions', which might also relate to SDK issues, 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. It mentions the tool provides 'diagnosis with solutions and code fixes', but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for post-integration issues versus pre-integration validation, leaving the agent with no usage context beyond the general purpose.

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