Statonic MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool 'Returns clip metadata for Claude to rank and select the best matches,' which adds some behavioral context about output format and ranking. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or how results are structured (e.g., pagination). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the return value, and the third provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or waste, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity (search with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and hints at output behavior but lacks details on error handling, result format, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more context is needed for full agent understanding.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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: 'Search the clip bank for clips matching a description.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('clip bank'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_clips_by_category' by emphasizing description-based matching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_statonic_library' or other search tools, preventing 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?

The description provides implied usage guidance: 'Use this to find the best clip for a specific video segment.' This suggests a context for video editing or content creation. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., 'get_clips_by_category' for category-based retrieval or 'search_statonic_library' for other media), and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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