llmconveyors-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, no side effects, required auth scope (sessions:read), ownership constraint, and return content (view count, timestamps). Lacks rate limits or error conditions, but covers critical behavioral traits well.

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 with zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by auth constraints, usage guidance, safety profile, scope requirement, and alternative tool—each sentence delivers distinct value.

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?

For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (view count, timestamps), authorization requirements, and distinguishes from the aggregate alternative. Complete 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so baseline 3 applies. Description references 'specific share link' which contextualizes the slug parameter, but does not add syntax examples or format details beyond the schema's 'Share link slug' description.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' + resource 'visit statistics for a specific share link', and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'share-stats' by noting this handles individual links vs aggregate data.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('track engagement on a specific shared artifact'), explicit alternative named ('use share-stats instead' for aggregate), and clear ownership precondition stated.

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