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 fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what happens on invalid input, or the format of the returned data. The description is too vague to inform the agent about critical behaviors beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get a single form', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action, 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 authentication needs, error handling, return format, and differentiation from siblings. For a basic retrieval tool, more context is needed to guide effective use, making it minimally adequate but with significant gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain the 'form_id' parameter (e.g., what it represents, how to obtain it, or valid ranges). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's structural definition, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear.

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 form' restates the tool name 'getForm' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. While it specifies the resource ('form'), it lacks specificity about what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieve metadata, content, or full details) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'listForms' or 'getFormField'.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a form_id), contrast with 'listForms' for multiple forms, or specify use cases like editing or viewing a form. The description offers only basic functional intent without contextual direction.

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