Prism MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses output structure ('Shows version numbers, timestamps, and summaries') compensating for missing output schema. Implies read-only nature via 'View' but doesn't explicitly state safety or performance characteristics.

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?

Three sentences structured efficiently: purpose (sentence 1), usage guidance (sentence 2), and behavioral disclosure (sentence 3). Front-loaded with action verb, zero redundancy, every sentence 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?

Given simple 2-parameter schema and lack of output schema, description adequately explains return values and sibling relationships. Could improve by mentioning handling of non-existent projects or pagination behavior, but sufficient for tool complexity.

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%, documenting both 'project' and 'limit' parameters completely. Description references 'this project' loosely mapping to the project parameter but doesn't add syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses specific verb 'View' with resource 'timeline of past memory states' and scope 'for this project'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling memory_checkout by contrasting timeline viewing versus version reverting.

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?

Explicitly states the sequencing rule 'Use this BEFORE memory_checkout' and explains the specific purpose 'to find the correct version to revert to', providing clear navigation guidance between related tools.

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