llmconveyors-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and succeeds well. It explicitly states 'Read-only, no side effects' (safety profile) and 'Requires scope: jobs:read or sales:read' (auth requirements). It also explains return behavior ('Returns status, logs, and artifacts when available'). Minor gap: doesn't mention polling frequency considerations or that repeated calls may return identical results until state changes.

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?

Six sentences strategically ordered: purpose → return values → workflow prerequisite → sibling alternative → safety → auth. Every sentence conveys distinct information without redundancy. No filler text. Excellent front-loading of critical workflow information.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers the asynchronous polling pattern: explains the monitor-respond loop (with agent-interact), documents auth requirements, clarifies the lightweight vs. full data retrieval pattern (via include parameter), and explains what data is available when. Complete for this tool type.

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% (agentType, jobId, and include all have descriptions). The description refers to returned data ('logs, and artifacts') which loosely maps to the include parameter options, but doesn't add semantic detail beyond the schema. With 100% coverage, 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 opens with 'Poll the status of a running agent job' providing specific verb (poll) and resource (agent job status). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming job-hunter-run, b2b-sales-run (prerequisites), and agent-interact (alternative for awaiting_input state), clearly scoping when to use this tool.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Use this after calling job-hunter-run or b2b-sales-run' (prerequisite condition). Also provides explicit alternative: 'When status is awaiting_input, use agent-interact to respond.' This creates a clear decision tree for the agent.

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