brilliant-directories-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves critical behavioral aspects like safety (read-only vs. destructive) and operational constraints unspecified, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meaning, behavioral context, and differentiation from siblings, failing to provide enough information for effective tool use despite the low complexity.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any semantic information about the 'email_id' parameter. It fails to explain what 'email_id' represents (e.g., a numeric identifier for the template) or its expected format, leaving the parameter meaning unclear beyond the schema's basic type.

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 email template' restates the tool name 'getEmailTemplate' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'email template' but lacks detail on what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieval by ID) or how it differs from siblings like 'listEmailTemplates', resulting in vague purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that 'getEmailTemplate' retrieves a specific template by ID, while 'listEmailTemplates' might return multiple templates, leaving the agent to infer usage from context without explicit direction.

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