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. 'List form fields' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like pagination handling (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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?

While the description is extremely concise (two words), this brevity results in under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single phrase 'List form fields' fails to provide necessary context, making it inefficient for the agent. A more structured approach with even one additional clarifying sentence would significantly improve utility without sacrificing brevity.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's scope, output format, error handling, or relationship to sibling tools. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to address broader contextual needs, leaving the agent under-informed about how to effectively use this tool in practice.

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 all 7 parameters clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., limit, page, filtering parameters). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No additional semantic context is offered 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 'List form fields' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'form fields' refers to (e.g., fields of a specific form, all form fields in the system) or distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like listForms or listPostFields. While the verb 'list' is clear, the resource 'form fields' remains vague without additional context.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing a form ID), differentiate from similar list tools (like listForms or getFormField), or specify appropriate contexts. This leaves the agent with no information to make informed decisions about tool selection.

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