Prism MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully explains key behavioral traits: the image is 'copied' (not moved), stored in 'Prism's media vault,' 'indexed in the handoff metadata,' and made available for future sessions. Missing error handling details or idempotency guarantees, but covers the core persistence and indexing mechanics well.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: purpose (sentence 1), use cases (sentence 2), behavioral mechanics (sentence 3), and integration point (sentence 4). Information is front-loaded and every clause 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 a 3-parameter tool with simple string types and no output schema, the description adequately covers functionality, use cases, storage mechanics, and session continuity. Does not describe return values (acceptable without output schema) or error conditions (minor gap).

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%, providing detailed descriptions for all three parameters (project, file_path, description). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond reinforcing 'local' for file_path and the vault storage context for project. With schema doing the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Save a local image file into the project's permanent visual memory') that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like session_save_experience (events) and knowledge_search (facts). It explicitly scopes the tool to 'visual memory' and mentions integration with session_load_context, anchoring it within the session management family.

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 concrete use cases ('UI states, diagrams, architecture graphs, or bug screenshots') and explains the workflow integration ('On the next session_load_context, the agent will see...'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions or direct sibling comparisons (e.g., vs session_view_image), but offers strong positive guidance.

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