chiark-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when an invalid agent_id is provided. The description is minimal and lacks important operational 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 packs substantial information about what the tool returns. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the core purpose from the detailed breakdown.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and return value components. However, it lacks important context about behavioral aspects, error handling, and differentiation from sibling tools. The description is adequate but has clear gaps in operational guidance.

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%, with the single parameter 'agent_id' documented as 'Agent UUID' in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 full quality score breakdown' with specific components listed (availability, conformance, performance, uptime, latency, trend, rank). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('quality score breakdown'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_agent_status' or 'find_agent'.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'check_agent_status' and 'find_agent' available, the agent receives no help in choosing between them.

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