Katzilla MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world traits, but the description specifies the source ('SWAPI (Public Domain), updates daily') and return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }'), including details on quality scoring and citation components. This enhances transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by source and return format details. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the query, the second specifies the source and update frequency, and the third explains the return structure. It is efficiently structured with no wasted words.

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 (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, update frequency, and return format, including quality and citation details. With an output schema present, it need not explain return values further, making this well-rounded for agent use.

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 'resource' (enum of types) and 'id' (resource ID). The description mentions querying 'people, planets, starships, and films,' aligning with the resource enum, but does not add further semantics beyond the schema, such as ID ranges or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 tool's purpose: 'Query the Star Wars API for people, planets, starships, and films. Returns detailed information from the Star Wars universe.' It specifies the verb ('query'), resources (people, planets, starships, films), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on Star Wars data, unlike other fun__ tools like chess-com or pokeapi.

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 clear context for usage: 'Query the Star Wars API for people, planets, starships, and films.' It implies this tool is for retrieving Star Wars universe data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as fun__pokeapi for Pokémon data, though the Star Wars focus is distinct.

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