chiark-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool helps 'improve future recommendations,' suggesting a feedback or logging function, but doesn't detail behavioral traits such as whether it's idempotent, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or how it interacts with the system. This leaves gaps in understanding its operational impact.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage timing without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., whether it's a write operation, error handling), and doesn't explain return values or system impact. For a tool that likely involves data submission (reporting outcomes), more context on its effects and response format 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 parameters (agent_id, success, error_message, task_category) with descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter relationships or usage examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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's purpose: 'Report routing outcome after using an agent' and 'Helps improve future recommendations.' It specifies the action (report) and resource (routing outcome), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_agent_score' or 'check_agent_status', which might also relate to agent performance tracking.

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 some usage context: 'Call after routing to an agent,' which implies timing. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_agent_score' (which might retrieve scores) or 'check_agent_status' (which might check current status). No explicit exclusions or detailed prerequisites are mentioned.

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