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 of behavioral disclosure but omits critical traits: it does not specify the time range (last 7 days vs. calendar week), whether the report is persisted to storage, computational cost, or idempotency. While it mentions a return value, it lacks safety profile information (read-only vs. destructive) that annotations would typically provide.

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 consists of exactly two sentences with efficient front-loading: the first states the action and target, the second describes the return value. There is no redundant or wasted text; every sentence earns its place in the minimal structure.

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 has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the basic contract. However, it remains incomplete regarding operational context: it fails to define the temporal scope ('weekly' is ambiguous) or filtering criteria for included backtests, leaving gaps that could cause incorrect usage despite the simple interface.

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 input schema contains zero parameters with 100% description coverage. According to scoring guidelines, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description correctly omits parameter discussion since none exist, aligning with the schema structure.

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 a clear verb ('Generate') and resource ('weekly backtest activity report'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'logs_analyze_history' and 'logs_strategy_performance' through the specific 'weekly' temporal scope. However, it lacks specificity regarding what constitutes 'activity' (e.g., runs, errors, performance metrics).

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 sibling alternatives like 'logs_analyze_history' or 'logs_strategy_performance', nor does it mention prerequisites such as existing backtest data requirements. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are present.

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