brilliant-directories-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action ('Get') without explaining what 'Get' entails—whether it's a read-only operation, what data is returned, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 field') that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and efficient. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity (a read operation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Get' returns, how to use field_id, or how this differs from sibling tools. For a tool with minimal structured data, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 (field_id) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no documentation about this parameter. The description adds no semantic information about field_id—what it represents, where to find it, format expectations, or valid values. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is inadequate.

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 field' clearly states the action (get) and resource (form field), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'listFormFields' or explain what constitutes a 'single' form field versus a list. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 like 'listFormFields' or 'getForm'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a field_id), use cases (e.g., retrieving specific field details), or exclusions. Without any usage context, the agent must infer everything from the tool name and schema.

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