Sensei 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions providing 'comprehensive guidance' but doesn't describe how it behaves—e.g., whether it generates interactive prompts, returns static text, handles follow-ups, or has any limitations like response length or rate. This leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the main purpose in the first sentence and adding usage context in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's role and when to use it, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key aspects of 'comprehensive guidance'.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and usage guidelines, which is adequate for a simple prompt tool. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., output format, interaction model) and doesn't differentiate from siblings, making it incomplete for optimal agent use in a context with multiple similar tools.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't incorrectly reference any.

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 states the tool is 'the main system prompt for Dojo development' and provides 'comprehensive guidance across all aspects of Dojo development', which gives a general purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what specific actions it performs (e.g., generating code, answering questions, providing tutorials) and doesn't clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dojo_101' or 'dojo_logic' that might also offer guidance.

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: 'when starting a conversation about Dojo or Cairo development, or when you need comprehensive guidance across all aspects of Dojo development'. This provides clear context for usage, but it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, such as using 'dojo_101' for basics or 'dojo_config' for configuration-specific help.

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