ClawSouls MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying 'detailed information', which hints at richer output beyond basic data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich in additional 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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 low complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on output format, error cases, or integration with siblings. With annotations covering read-only behavior, it's adequate but could be more informative for an 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%, with clear descriptions for 'owner' and 'name' parameters. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents parameters, and no extra value is added.

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 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific persona', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'soul_search' or 'soul_scan', which prevents a perfect score, but the specificity of 'detailed information about a specific persona' is sufficient for clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'soul_search' or 'soul_scan'. It mentions 'specific persona', which implies it's for retrieving details of a known persona, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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