brilliant-directories-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what the return format looks like, whether results are paginated, or any rate limits. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by 'List.'

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 just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name. It lacks the front-loaded information structure that would help an agent quickly understand the tool's purpose and appropriate usage.

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 completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what menu items are, what data they contain, how results are structured, or any behavioral characteristics. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool 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 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (limit, page, filtering options, sorting). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 menu items' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other list tools (like listMenus, listCategories) or explain what constitutes a 'menu item' in this context. While the verb 'List' is clear, the resource 'menu items' is too vague without additional context about scope or content.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for listing different entities (listMenus, listCategories, listPages, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate what distinguishes menu items from these other resources or when this specific listing tool is appropriate. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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