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. It only states the action ('List') without detailing traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a list tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, 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 a single, efficient phrase with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 lacks details on return values (e.g., structure of listed relationships), behavioral context like pagination or filtering logic, and usage guidelines. This leaves gaps for an agent to understand how to effectively invoke and interpret results.

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 well-documented (e.g., 'limit' with default and max, 'page' as pagination cursor). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how filters combine or default sorting. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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-service relationships' states the verb ('List') and resource ('user-service relationships'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what these relationships entail (e.g., associations, permissions, subscriptions) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getUserService' or 'listUsers', which might overlap in scope. It meets the minimum viable standard but lacks specificity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'getUserService' (likely for single relationships), 'listUsers', and 'listServices', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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