Binalyze AIR MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get statistics' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like (e.g., aggregated counts vs. detailed data), or any performance considerations like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It uses clear language and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential information.

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 (16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., what statistics are provided, format), behavioral traits, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to effectively invoke the tool beyond its basic function.

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 description mentions 'based on filter criteria,' which aligns with the 16 parameters in the input schema, all of which have 100% schema description coverage. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, as the schema already details each filter parameter. Given the high coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't provide additional syntax or usage examples for the parameters.

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 action ('Get statistics') and the resource ('endpoints match each policy'), specifying it's about statistical counts based on filter criteria. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_assets' or 'get_case_endpoints', which might also involve endpoints but with different purposes, leaving room for improvement in distinguishing its unique focus.

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, such as 'list_assets' for raw endpoint lists or other statistical tools. It mentions 'based on filter criteria' but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites, offering minimal usage context.

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