ClawSouls MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'Fetch' (a read operation). The description adds context about using it after search results, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or output format. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich in extra details.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidelines. It is front-loaded with the core function and efficiently conveys essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (a read operation with 4 parameters), annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint), and schema coverage is 100%, the description is mostly complete. However, with no output schema, it does not explain return values or format, leaving a minor gap in full context for the agent.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'full content of a specific memory section,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_search (which searches) and memory_status (which checks status). It specifies retrieving detailed content after search results, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 explicitly states 'Use after memory_search to get details for high-scoring results,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and naming the alternative tool (memory_search) for context. This helps the agent understand the workflow and avoid misuse.

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