llmconveyors-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses 'Read-only, no side effects' and auth requirement 'Requires scope: sessions:read'. Lacks only secondary behavioral details like rate limits or caching behavior.

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 each earning their place: purpose, usage context, safety profile, auth scope, and sibling alternative. Front-loaded with the action verb and no redundant text.

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 zero-parameter read tool without output schema, the description adequately hints at return values ('total shares and total views'). Minor gap in fully specifying the return structure or data types.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, which according to rubric establishes a baseline of 4. Description appropriately does not invent parameter semantics where none exist.

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 verb 'Get' with clear resource 'aggregate statistics about all shared links' and scope 'for the current user'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'share-slug-stats' by contrasting aggregate vs per-link statistics.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('for an overview of sharing activity') and provides the exact alternative tool name for different use cases ('For per-link stats, use share-slug-stats'), satisfying both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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