llmconveyors-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses: auth requirement ('Requires scope: upload:write'), size constraint ('Max file size ~10 MB'), and return value structure (extracted title, requirements, etc.). Minor gap: doesn't clarify if the uploaded file persists as a stored resource or is transiently processed.

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?

Four dense sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core operation, followed by return values, usage conditions, and constraints/alternatives. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Strong coverage given no output schema: describes extracted return fields, size limits, auth scope, and sibling alternatives. Only minor gap is ambiguity around whether the upload creates a persistent stored resource or is purely for extraction.

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%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds valuable semantic context: specifies allowed formats (PDF/DOCX/TXT) which informs filename/contentType usage, reinforces base64 encoding requirement, and links maxLength to the ~10 MB constraint mentioned in 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?

Excellent specificity: verb (upload) + resource (job description file) + formats (PDF/DOCX/TXT) + transformation (parse into structured data). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'upload-job-text' by contrasting file-based vs plain text inputs.

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 ('when the job description is in a file rather than plain text') and when-not-to-use with named alternative ('For plain text or URL-based job descriptions, use upload-job-text instead'). Also notes prerequisite scope requirement.

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