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. 'List widgets' implies a read operation but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (though hinted in schema), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'widget' in this context. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the minimal implication of listing functionality.

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 with exactly two words that directly state the tool's function. There is zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the description is perfectly front-loaded and efficient in its word choice.

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 list operation with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'widgets' are, what fields they contain, how results are structured, or provide any context about the listing operation. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide the necessary contextual understanding for effective tool use, especially given the absence of an output schema.

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, thoroughly documenting all 7 parameters with clear descriptions of their purposes, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which is acceptable given the excellent schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through schema alone.

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 widgets' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. While it correctly identifies the verb ('list') and resource ('widgets'), it fails to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'getWidget' or explain what 'widgets' represent in this system. The purpose is stated but lacks specificity and differentiation.

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. There is no mention of when to choose 'listWidgets' over 'getWidget' (for single widget retrieval) or other list tools like 'listCategories'. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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