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. It states 'Get a single widget', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, error handling (e.g., if widget_id doesn't exist), rate limits, or what the return format might be. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 widget', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part earns its place by stating the core action and resource, though it could benefit from more detail.

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 doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or how it fits with siblings like 'listWidgets'. For a basic read operation, more context is needed to guide the agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, which only shows a required 'widget_id' of type integer. No details on parameter semantics (e.g., what a widget_id is, valid ranges, or examples) are provided, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 widget' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('widget'), but it's vague about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve, fetch, read) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getWidget' vs. 'listWidgets' or 'createWidget'. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name, but lacks specificity.

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 like 'listWidgets' or 'createWidget'. The description implies usage for retrieving a single widget but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a widget_id) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the schema alone.

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