rf-log-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. It mentions retrieving a view but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'supported view' entails. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, leaving the agent with insufficient behavioral context.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter meanings or behavioral traits, though the output schema may help with return values. This leaves gaps but isn't entirely inadequate, aligning with a minimum viable score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely references 'run id' and 'file path' without explaining the 5 parameters (run_id, view, selector, cursor, budget) or their relationships. This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, resulting in poor parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'Get one supported view using a numeric run id or an already-parsed file path.' It specifies the action (get), resource (view), and input types (run id or file path). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'parse_result' or 'search_messages', which prevents a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool, mentioning only the input types (run id or file path). It doesn't explain when to choose this over alternatives like 'parse_result' or 'search_messages', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving significant gaps in usage context.

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