Eight Sleep MCP Capabilities

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: it 'does not call Eight Sleep or expose secrets', which is critical safety information beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The description is front-loaded with the main action and ends with a safety caveat. Every word earns its place.

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?

For an informational tool explaining capabilities, the description covers what it does, what it doesn't do, and its safety profile. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. Complete for its purpose.

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 single parameter (response_format) is fully defined by the schema (enum, default). With 0% schema coverage in the description, the description should add value, but it does not mention the parameter. However, the parameter is trivial and self-explanatory, earning a baseline 3.

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 'explains supported Eight Sleep data, mutation gate, privacy modes, and project links'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which perform specific data retrieval or mutations) by being a meta-level capability disclosure tool.

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 implies usage for understanding the MCP server's capabilities without external calls, but no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' is given. The context from sibling names partially compensates.

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