Lokalen Server-Katalog bauen

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

Annotations state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description only says 'creates a catalog', which aligns with these annotations but adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects (e.g., starting local MCP servers when includeTools=true), file writes, or potential resource usage. The description does not contradict annotations but also does not go beyond them.

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 extremely concise—one sentence with no filler or redundancy. It effectively front-loads the core purpose. However, given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), this level of brevity sacrifices necessary context, though that is more of a completeness issue than a conciseness issue. It earns a 4 for efficient wording.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and non-trivial behavior (e.g., starting servers, writing files). The description only provides a high-level statement of output, leaving the agent without understanding of return values, side effects, or when to invoke it. The schema covers parameter details, but the description fails to tie them together or explain the overall workflow, making it incomplete for an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage across all 8 parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter's meaning. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics; it doesn't mention any parameters or their roles. With such high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Erzeugt' (creates) and the resource 'JSON-Katalog der lokal gefundenen MCP-Server'. It identifies the tool's purpose as generating a catalog, which is distinct from siblings like controlcenter_list_local_servers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from that sibling or other related tools, so it misses the highest level of clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about prerequisites, and no exclusions. It is a single declarative sentence without any usage direction. The schema hints at profile-based scanning and tool inclusion, but the description itself gives no decision support.

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