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 discloses the three-step workflow (reads, refines, re-validates) and return structure (Dict with status, iterations, changes), but fails to clarify critical mutation semantics: whether it overwrites the original strategy, creates a new version, or what happens if re-validation fails.

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 well-structured with clear sections (summary, workflow, Args, Returns) and appropriately concise. The repetition of workflow steps adds clarity without excessive verbosity, though the Args/Returns sections are necessary only due to the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

While the description covers the basic operation, parameters, and return values, it lacks completeness for a mutation tool: no safety warnings, no error handling details, and no clarification of the 're-validates' step (whether it invokes backtesting_validate or performs internal validation).

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the Args section effectively compensates by documenting all four parameters (name, feedback, focus_area, max_iterations) with their purposes and default values. This provides essential semantic context missing from the structured 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 tool 'Refine[s] existing strategy based on feedback,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like strategy_create (new vs. existing) and strategy_delete through the 'refine' operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from strategy_suggest_improvements.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like strategy_suggest_improvements or strategy_create. While it implies a workflow (reads → refines → re-validates), there are no 'use when' conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.

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