mc_kit_express

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the return is a single line whose content depends on `mc_admin_config`'s `expressBase`, and it instructs not to re-prefix links with a domain. It omits whether the file is copied/uploaded or read in place, which would matter for a sharing tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the config-dependent return, but the `.mcp-mc-agent/.express/` constraint is repeated three times (opening line, first bullet, closing warning), which is padding without added information. Formatting is otherwise scannable.

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 no output schema, the description explains what is returned and how it varies by configuration, plus the link-handling rule. An agent can invoke it correctly. Only the file-transformation semantics (copy vs reference) remain unexplained.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `path` parameter is documented in-schema; the description restates the same relative/absolute and `.express/` constraint rather than adding new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the work.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: delivering files from the publish area `.mcp-mc-agent/.express/` to the user. The scope constraint makes the resource unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like mc_kit_image, which is the only gap.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: if expressBase is unconfigured, tell the user the absolute path; if configured, embed the full URL using markdown for images vs links for other files. It also states the hard constraint that only publish-area files are shareable. No usage alternatives worth naming, but the when/how is clear.

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