Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the source ('Hacker News (Public API)'), update frequency ('real-time'), and details about the return format ('Katzilla envelope' with quality scores and citation info including SHA-256 hash). 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and data returned, and the second adds source, update info, and return format details. Every sentence contributes essential information without waste, making it front-loaded and concise.

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 (implied by the description of the return format), the description is complete. It adequately explains what the tool does, its source, update behavior, and output structure, leaving no significant gaps for an AI 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 the parameter 'limit' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 the top stories') and resources ('from Hacker News'), including what data it returns ('titles, URLs, and scores'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it's for Hacker News content, unlike other media or unrelated tools in the list.

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 when to use this tool ('Get the top stories from Hacker News') and implies it's for real-time updates, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. The context is sufficient for typical usage without explicit exclusions.

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