Polish Academic MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns HTML (not JSON), which is a key behavioral trait not evident from the schema. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., if it's read-only, which is implied but not stated), error handling, or performance considerations like rate limits, leaving gaps for a 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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core functionality in the first clause and adding important behavioral details (HTML output) in a second sentence. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from constraints.

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, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and output format (HTML), but lacks details on error cases, what the HTML contains, or how it integrates with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more context would help the agent use it effectively.

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%, with both parameters ('kind' and 'lang') well-documented in the schema itself (including enums and descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'kind' values and the listed categories. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: 'Browse by production kind' with specific categories (fiction, documentary, animation/experimental, magazine) and mentions it returns HTML. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'fn_repo_search' by focusing on browsing by kind rather than general search, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'fn_repo_film_index' or 'fn_repo_get_node'.

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 context by stating 'same entries as the top menu,' suggesting this tool is for structured browsing akin to a website's navigation. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'fn_repo_search' or 'fn_repo_film_index,' leaving the agent to infer based on the browsing vs. searching distinction.

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