cachly-mcp-server

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. It usefully describes that PII is stripped automatically and that published lessons become visible under framework/category tags. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a write operation (implied but not stated), what permissions are needed, whether publishing is reversible, or what happens on success/failure.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each add value: the core action, the import alternative, and visibility details. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words while covering essential context.

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 write operation with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides good basic context about the publishing action and community knowledge base. However, it lacks important details about what the tool returns, error conditions, or the full behavioral implications of publishing. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain what success looks like.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about 'topic' being used as a public category and 'lesson' having PII stripped, but doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Publish a lesson') and target resource ('Cachly Public Brain'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'import_public_brain' which imports rather than publishes. It specifies the anonymized community knowledge base context, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to publish lessons for community sharing, with PII stripped automatically. It mentions the alternative 'import_public_brain' for importing published lessons, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to other siblings like 'team_learn' or 'global_learn'.

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