Jesse 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. It successfully documents the return value ('Dict with number of entries cleared per cache') and explains the null behavior, but fails to explicitly disclose that this is a destructive operation with data loss implications or mention performance impacts.

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 Args/Returns structure is highly scannable. The opening sentence is front-loaded with purpose. Every line earns its place—no redundant text. The format efficiently conveys parameter constraints and return type in minimal space.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with straightforward functionality, the description is complete. It documents the input parameter, valid values, default behavior, and return structure. Given the absence of annotations, it adequately covers the behavioral contract despite missing explicit safety warnings.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description excellently compensates by documenting the valid enum-like values ('strategy_list, backtest') and explaining the default null behavior ('clears all caches'). This adds critical semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 ('Clear cache(s)') and purpose ('to free memory or force fresh data'). It distinguishes itself from read-only cache operations like 'cache_stats' by emphasizing the clearing action, though it could more explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 implied usage context ('free memory or force fresh data') explaining when to use it, but lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or comparisons to alternatives like 'cache_stats'. The Args section effectively documents the parameter behavior.

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