cachly-mcp-server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the source ('Cachly Public Brain') and nature of content ('battle-tested, community-curated lessons'), but doesn't describe what 'import' entails operationally (e.g., whether it overwrites existing lessons, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the response looks like). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second lists available frameworks. It's front-loaded with the main action, though the framework list could be more structured. Every sentence adds value, with minimal waste.

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 (importing external content into an instance), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens during import (e.g., error handling, side effects), the format of imported lessons, or any dependencies. For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no structured safety or output information, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by listing specific framework options (e.g., 'nextjs', 'fastapi') that correspond to the 'framework' parameter, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the tool imports community lessons from the Cachly Public Brain for specific frameworks, with a specific verb ('import') and resource ('community lessons'). It distinguishes from most siblings by focusing on importing pre-existing content rather than cache operations or learning/recall functions, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'publish_lesson' or 'global_learn'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists available frameworks but doesn't indicate prerequisites, timing considerations, or when other tools like 'global_learn' or 'publish_lesson' might be more appropriate. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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