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 effectively describes key behaviors: the tool writes analysis results to an editor modal that auto-populates, and it enforces specific text structuring rules (e.g., separating spanning vs. slot-specific text). However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or response format, leaving some gaps for a write 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 essential usage guidelines and text structuring rules. Each sentence adds critical value without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension by an agent.

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 of a write operation with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description does a strong job by covering purpose, sequencing, and text handling rules. However, it doesn't fully address potential behavioral aspects like error conditions or what happens on success, leaving minor gaps in completeness for a tool with no structured safety or output information.

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 some semantic context by explaining the purpose of 'slots' and 'spanning_texts' in the analysis workflow, but it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Write your analysis of the reference video frames back to the editor') and resource ('reference video frames'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_reference_frames' (which retrieves frames) and 'write_statonic_project' (which writes a different type of project). The purpose is precise and actionable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Call this after get_reference_frames'), providing clear sequencing guidance. It also distinguishes usage from alternatives by specifying text placement rules (e.g., use 'spanning_texts' for multi-slot text vs. 'detectedText' for unique slot text), helping the agent choose correctly among related tools.

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