Prism MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses return values ('concept, confidence, distance, ambiguity, convergence steps') which is helpful given the lack of output schema. However, it fails to clarify operational traits: whether this is read-only, if it modifies session state, or what 'policy-gated' enforcement implies for access control.

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 with three distinct clauses: the transformation action, the return values, and the usage context. The 'v6.5' versioning is specific but justifiable for API targeting. No redundant or filler text is present.

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 output schema, the description appropriately documents the expected return structure. However, with 7 parameters and complex cognitive routing behavior, the description could better contextualize how the 'state', 'role', and 'action' parameters interact (transition binding) or what constitutes valid concept keys.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'HDC compositional state' (relating to the 'state' parameter) and implies the purpose of thresholds via 'policy-gated routing', but does not add significant semantic context beyond what the schema already provides for the 7 parameters.

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 core action ('Resolve an HDC compositional state into a nearest semantic concept') and mechanism ('policy-gated routing'), distinguishing it from simple search tools. However, 'HDC' jargon and lack of explicit differentiation from siblings like 'session_search_memory' prevent a perfect score.

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?

Provides a specific use case ('Use this for explainable cognitive recall decisions in v6.5'), indicating when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or how it differs from the numerous sibling search/recall tools available (e.g., 'knowledge_search', 'session_search_memory').

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