llmconveyors-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses: return value composition (metadata fields included and excluded), safety profile ('Read-only, no side effects'), and authorization requirements ('Requires scope: settings:read'). Excellent transparency.

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?

Five sentences, zero waste. Structure is optimally front-loaded: action → return values → use cases → safety → auth. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or tautology.

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 output schema, the description comprehensively compensates by detailing return structure (hash, label, scopes, creation date) and security limitations. Covers auth scope and workflow context. Minor gap: could mention pagination behavior or empty result handling, but adequate for this complexity level.

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?

Zero parameters present. Per scoring rules, 0 params equals baseline 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter information since none exist, and the empty schema requires no semantic clarification.

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 uses specific verbs ('List') and resources ('platform API keys') scoped to the 'current user'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like api-key-create and api-key-rotate by noting it returns metadata but NOT actual key values (which are only shown at creation time).

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 when-to-use guidance ('find key hashes for revocation, rotation, or usage queries') that maps to sibling workflows. Implicitly defines when not to use (don't retrieve actual key values here) but does not explicitly name the alternative tool (api-key-create) or provide exclusion clauses.

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