ClawSouls MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what the tool does (comparison-based drift detection) and what it returns (drift severity and recommended actions), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, error conditions, or performance characteristics.

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 that are front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently convey the action, inputs, and outputs without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.

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 (comparison-based analysis with two object parameters), the description is complete enough for understanding its purpose and usage. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, though without an output schema, more detail on return values (e.g., structure of severity and actions) could be helpful. Annotations cover safety, and schema covers parameters well.

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 both parameters (current_files and original_files) well-described in the schema as objects mapping filenames to content. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Detect persona drift by comparing'), the resource ('current Soul Spec files against their original committed versions'), and the output ('Returns drift severity and recommended actions'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like soul_scan or soul_search by focusing on comparison-based drift detection rather than scanning or searching.

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 implies usage when needing to detect drift in Soul Spec files, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like soul_scan or provide exclusions. The context is clear (comparing current vs. original files), but no explicit guidance on when-not-to-use or named alternatives is given.

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