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. It discloses that the tool returns 'all analyzed clips with their metadata' and involves 'Claude to rank by relevance', adding useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, which are important for a search operation.

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 two concise sentences that add necessary context without waste. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the return value and usage intent, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (a search tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, return data, and usage context. However, it could improve by mentioning output format or any behavioral constraints, as there's no output schema to rely on.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the query is for 'a specific purpose', which is minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Search Statonic's analyzed clip library'), the resource ('clips'), and the outcome ('for clips matching a query'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_clip_bank' by specifying it's for 'analyzed clips' with 'metadata for Claude to rank by relevance', making the purpose distinct and well-defined.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: 'to find the best clips for a specific purpose' and implies it's for relevance ranking by Claude. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'search_clip_bank' or 'get_clips_by_category'), leaving some ambiguity compared to sibling tools.

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