brilliant-directories-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get a single page' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the page doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 just three words, front-loading the essential action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficiently structured despite its content limitations.

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, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'page' is, what data is returned, or how this tool fits within the broader system context. For a basic read operation among many similar tools, more contextual information would be 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'seo_id' documented as 'Page primary key'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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 page' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'getPage'. While it indicates a read operation on a 'page' resource, it lacks specificity about what a 'page' represents in this context (e.g., webpage, document, database record) and doesn't differentiate from sibling 'get' tools like getPost or getCategory. It provides minimal purpose clarification beyond the name.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to similar tools like listPages or getPost. With many sibling tools available, this absence leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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