help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that different topics yield different outputs, and importantly, that 'identity' requires a session token (an integer with constraints). This reveals a behavioral nuance and sensitivity. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or what happens on invalid input.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise, front-loaded, and wastes no words—every phrase 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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the main use cases effectively. It lacks explicit mention of error handling or output format, but the behavior for the listed topics is complete enough for a discovery tool. The missing detail about return format is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines both parameters. The description adds value by mapping specific 'topic' values (e.g., 'index', 'guide', 'identity') to their behaviors, which is not captured in the schema. This enriches the semantics beyond basic type and 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?

The description clearly states the tool is for discovery of the MCP server, specifying distinct behaviors for different argument values: no args for overview, 'index' for skill index, 'guide' for comms guide, and a tool name for detailed help. This clearly differentiates it from siblings (action, dequeue, send) which are action-oriented.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each topic value, including a special case for 'identity' requiring a token. It effectively tells the agent how to navigate the tool's functionality, leaving no ambiguity about the expected use cases.

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