molt-mcp

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 discloses the return structure (document ID, write/read keys) and the critical behavioral constraint that keys are ephemeral ('shown only once'), though it omits other potential behavioral details like rate limits or permissions.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action, the second states the return values, the third provides a critical warning, and the Args section documents the single parameter. No redundancy or fluff.

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 only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is appropriately complete. It covers the essential behavioral warning (one-time keys) and parameter semantics without needing to exhaustively document return values that the output schema should define.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates effectively by specifying that the content parameter accepts 'Initial markdown content' and is 'optional', providing type context and requirement status absent from the 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 specific action ('Create') and resource ('encrypted document'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_doc, update_doc, or append_doc which handle existing documents.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use update_doc for modifications'), the description provides critical usage context by specifying that keys are shown only once and must be saved immediately, implying this is an initialization operation.

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