Pocketsmith MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists budget analysis but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the analysis includes. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential complexity.

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 a single, efficient phrase that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details if expanded for better clarity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool operates and what results to expect. This is inadequate for a tool that likely outputs structured budget data.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'roll_up' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond implying a per-category focus, which doesn't enhance the schema's details. This 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 'List per-category budget analysis' clearly states the tool's purpose (listing budget analysis) and specifies the scope (per-category), which distinguishes it from generic budget tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pocketsmith_get_budget_summary' or 'pocketsmith_list_categories', leaving some ambiguity about the exact distinction.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'pocketsmith_get_budget_summary' or 'pocketsmith_list_categories', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This lack of comparative or contextual information leaves the agent without clear direction.

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