atxp-mcp

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it discloses cost details ($0.05–0.15/call depending on size) and return format (URL or base64 data), which are not covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return format, usage examples, and cost details in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 output schema), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, return format, usage examples, and cost. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which could be useful for an AI agent. Annotations provide some behavioral context, but more completeness could be achieved.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning 'creative descriptions, photorealistic renders, artistic styles' as examples for the prompt, but this is redundant with the schema's guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'AI image from a text prompt', specifying the service provider 'ATXP's image generation service'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like atxp_music_generate by focusing on images rather than music or other functions.

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 clear context for usage by mentioning 'creative descriptions, photorealistic renders, artistic styles, and more', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like atxp_music_generate or atxp_web_search, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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