molt-mcp

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: decryption occurs during reading, and output format varies (markdown vs JSON with metadata) based on as_markdown flag. However, it omits safety profile (idempotency, read-only nature), error conditions, or authorization requirements.

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 appropriately sized with zero waste. The Args section structure efficiently maps parameters to their semantics. The front-loaded first sentence establishes purpose immediately. Minor deduction for informal docstring formatting ('Args:') which is slightly less readable than prose.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated in context signals), the description appropriately focuses on input parameters and high-level behavior rather than return values. For a 3-parameter read operation with decryption complexity, the description covers the essential contract adequately.

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 (no description fields in the JSON schema), the description effectively compensates by documenting all three parameters: doc_id as 'UUID', lines as 'Optional - return only the first N lines', and as_markdown behavior. 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 'Read[s] a document's decrypted content'—specific verb (read), specific resource (document), and unique scope (decrypted content). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_doc or update_doc, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with read_workspace.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use lines parameter for previews vs full read). The phrase 'for previews' implies a use case for the lines parameter but doesn't constitute explicit when/when-not guidance for the tool itself.

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