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. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get') and resource ('album group field definitions'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 complexity (1 required parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the parameter's role, the tool's behavioral traits (e.g., authentication needs), or what the output contains. For a tool that likely returns structured data about fields, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 ('form_name') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about this parameter. The description 'Get album group field definitions' doesn't mention 'form_name' at all, failing to explain what this parameter is, why it's required, or how it relates to album groups. This leaves the parameter's purpose and usage completely undocumented.

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 album group field definitions' clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') on a specific resource ('album group field definitions'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'getPortfolioGroup' or 'getFormField', leaving ambiguity about what exactly 'field definitions' refers to compared to other get operations.

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 'getPortfolioGroup' (likely retrieves group data) and 'getFormField' (likely retrieves form field data), there's no indication of whether this tool is for metadata, schema information, or configuration details of portfolio groups. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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