Aedifion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get a specific logbook' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the logbook doesn't exist. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get a specific logbook'). The parameter explanations are brief and directly relevant. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly rather than as a separate 'Args:' section.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and simple parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meanings, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, permissions) that would be helpful for a tool with no annotations.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics by explaining 'project_id: The project's numeric ID' and 'logbook_id: The logbook ID', which clarifies what these IDs refer to. However, it doesn't provide format details, constraints, or examples, leaving room for improvement.

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 states the tool 'Get a specific logbook', which clearly indicates a retrieval operation on a logbook resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_logbooks' (plural) or 'create_logbook', leaving ambiguity about when to use this versus the list operation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools including 'get_logbooks' (likely for listing) and 'create_logbook', the description doesn't indicate that this is for retrieving a single, specific logbook by ID rather than listing all logbooks or creating new ones.

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