MCP Presidio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON string with operator names, descriptions, and example parameters, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the list is static or dynamic), leaving gaps in transparency for a read operation.

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 well-structured with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another detailing the return format. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste. It could be slightly improved by front-loading the return details more explicitly, but it's efficient overall.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the format of the return value, which compensates for the lack of annotations. However, it could benefit from more context on usage scenarios or limitations to fully address the tool's role among siblings.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description correctly omits parameter information, focusing instead on the return value. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy and adds value by explaining the output.

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 list of available anonymization operators and their descriptions.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('anonymization operators'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_supported_entities' or 'validate_detection', which prevents a perfect score.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_supported_entities' and 'validate_detection' that might overlap in functionality (e.g., retrieving information about anonymization components), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from others in the server.

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