brilliant-directories-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but there's no information about authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the group_id doesn't exist. The description doesn't mention whether this is a safe operation or has any side effects beyond basic retrieval.

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 maximally concise - a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration. For a simple retrieval operation, this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'category group' is in this system's context, what data it returns, or how this operation fits into the broader category management workflow. The minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool use.

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 and one required parameter (group_id), the description provides no information about what group_id represents, its format constraints, or valid values. The schema only indicates it's an integer, but the description doesn't add any semantic meaning about what this identifier refers to or where to obtain valid group_id values.

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 'Get a single category group' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('category group'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCategory' or 'listCategoryGroups' - it's a generic retrieval operation without specifying what distinguishes this particular 'get' operation from others in the system.

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 alternatives. With siblings like 'getCategory', 'listCategoryGroups', and various other 'get' operations, there's no indication of when this specific category group retrieval is appropriate versus other category-related operations or general retrieval patterns in the system.

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