llmconveyors-mcp

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

Compensates well for missing annotations by explicitly stating 'Read-only, no side effects' and auth requirement 'Requires scope: sessions:read'. Discloses safety profile clearly. Missing: error behavior for invalid agent types or rate limit details, but covers essential behavioral traits for a read-only endpoint.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. First sentence defines operation and return values, second provides usage context, third covers safety/auth. Front-loaded with action verb and efficiently 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?

Provides complete information given complexity: lists specific return metrics (compensating for no output schema), covers auth, and explains the single parameter's purpose through workflow examples. Could explicitly mention that agentType is required, though schema makes this obvious.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter is well-documented in schema ('Agent type to get stats for'). Description references the enum values ('job-hunter or b2b-sales workflows') adding contextual meaning, but does not elaborate on parameter syntax, format, or selection criteria beyond schema definition. Baseline 3 appropriate for complete 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?

Excellent specificity: states exact verb ('Get'), resource ('aggregate session statistics'), and scope (specific metrics like 'emails drafted', 'reply rate', 'credits consumed'). Explicitly ties to 'agent type' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like session-list (individual sessions) or session-get (specific session details).

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 clear usage context ('Use this to review overall usage and performance metrics for job-hunter or b2b-sales workflows'). However, lacks explicit sibling contrast (e.g., 'use session-list instead for individual session details') or exclusion criteria.

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