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 nothing beyond the basic action. It doesn't mention that this is a read-only operation, doesn't describe pagination behavior (though hinted in schema), doesn't explain what 'posts' represent in this system, and provides no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any useful information that would help an AI agent understand or use the tool effectively. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't add value beyond the tool name.

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 'posts' are in this system, doesn't describe the return format, doesn't mention pagination behavior (though hinted in schema), and provides no context about how this differs from 'searchPosts'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds zero additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info 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 posts' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'posts', but fails to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'searchPosts' or provide any details about scope, format, or purpose beyond the obvious.

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 like 'searchPosts' or 'getPost'. There's no mention of filtering capabilities, pagination behavior, or any contextual cues that would help an AI agent select the appropriate tool for a given task.

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