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 fails to deliver. 'List menus' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what the response format looks like, or any rate limits or constraints. The description provides no behavioral context beyond the minimal implication that it returns multiple menu items.

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 maximally concise at just two words. While this represents severe under-specification, from a pure conciseness perspective, there's zero wasted language. Every word (both of them) directly contributes to stating the tool's purpose, though inadequately.

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 'menus' are in this context, what data is returned, how results are structured, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would have to rely entirely on the parameter schema without understanding the broader context of the operation.

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 all 7 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds zero information about parameters, so it neither compensates for schema gaps nor adds value beyond what's already in the structured data. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 menus' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what kind of menus are being listed, what system they belong to, or what information is returned. While it does contain the verb 'list' and resource 'menus', it provides no differentiation from sibling tools like 'getMenu' or other list tools.

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's no mention of when this tool should be used instead of 'getMenu' (which presumably retrieves a single menu), no indication of prerequisites or required permissions, and no context about what scenarios call for listing menus versus other operations.

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