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 user photos' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what the schema hints at), or what the output looks like. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, 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?

The description is extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. There's no wasted language or redundancy, which is appropriate for a simple tool name. Every word earns its place, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination, filtering logic, or return format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively. The high parameter count and lack of structured support make this description inadequate.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how filters interact or default behaviors. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with any extra 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 user photos' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('user photos'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getUserPhoto' (singular) or 'listUsers', leaving ambiguity about scope and specificity. It's adequate but lacks the precision needed for full clarity.

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. With siblings like 'getUserPhoto' (likely for retrieving a single photo) and 'listUsers' (for listing users), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This omission could lead to incorrect tool selection by an AI agent.

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