Katzilla MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source ('4chan (Public API)'), update frequency ('updates monthly'), and detailed return format ('Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details'). Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, so the description effectively supplements them without contradiction.

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 highly concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and parameter logic, and the second details the return format and source. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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 (one optional parameter), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It effectively explains the tool's functionality, data source, update cadence, and return structure, leaving no significant gaps 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning the parameter's effect (board list vs. catalog) but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema states, meeting the baseline for high 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 with specific verbs ('Get 4chan board list or catalog for a specific board'), identifies the resource ('4chan'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying its unique data source and return format. It explicitly mentions what happens when the parameter is omitted versus provided.

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 usage context by explaining that omitting the 'board' parameter returns a board list, while providing it returns a catalog for that board. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites, which prevents a perfect score.

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