Statonic MCP

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 describes key behaviors: recursive scanning, metadata generation for clips without it, and file creation/updates ('Creates/updates index.json'). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, performance (e.g., time/rate limits), or what 'analyze' entails (e.g., formats supported).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by supporting details. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the main action, the second clarifies metadata handling, and the third specifies the output file. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and key behaviors but lacks details on output format (beyond 'index.json'), error cases, or integration with siblings. Given the complexity of video analysis, more context on limitations or results would be helpful.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying 'folder_path' is for the clip bank and 'regenerate' controls re-analysis. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('scan', 'analyze', 'build', 'generate', 'create/update') and resources ('folder', 'video clips', 'searchable index', 'metadata', 'index.json'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_clip_bank' (which queries an existing index) by emphasizing index creation/updating.

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 indexing video clips in a folder, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'analyze_video_clip' (single clip analysis) or 'search_clip_bank' (querying). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context inferred rather than stated.

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