Aedifion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination parameters but doesn't describe important behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or the structure of returned user data. The mention of pagination is helpful but insufficient 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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 an output schema exists (which handles return values), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, for a tool with no annotations and 2 parameters, it should ideally include more behavioral context about authentication, rate limits, or error handling to be fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description provides clear semantic information about both parameters ('page: Page number' and 'per_page: Items per page'), explaining their purpose in pagination. This effectively compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't specify default values or constraints.

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 with 'Get all users in the realm' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('users in the realm'). However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_user' or 'get_company_user', which might retrieve individual users rather than all realm users.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_user' or 'get_company_user' from the sibling list.

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