brilliant-directories-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, whether there are rate limits, what format the response takes, or any pagination behavior. The single phrase 'List category groups' reveals nothing about the tool's operational characteristics beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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?

While technically concise with only three words, this description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. True conciseness balances brevity with completeness - this description sacrifices all useful context for minimal word count. It fails to front-load critical information and doesn't use its limited space to convey anything beyond what the tool name already states.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'listing' entails operationally, what the response format might be, or any behavioral characteristics. While the schema covers parameter mechanics well, the description fails to provide the contextual understanding needed for effective tool selection and invocation, especially given the absence of output documentation.

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 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting all 7 parameters with clear explanations of their purposes, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter understanding through schema alone, though the description contributes zero additional semantic context.

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 'List category groups' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it indicates a listing action on category groups, it lacks specificity about what 'listing' entails (e.g., retrieving all groups, with filtering/sorting capabilities) and doesn't differentiate from sibling list tools like 'listCategories' or 'listTagGroups'. This minimal description provides only basic intent without clarifying scope or distinguishing features.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., when to use listCategoryGroups versus getCategoryGroup or search functions). The agent receives no help in determining when this specific listing tool is the right choice among the many available options.

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