EpicMe MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns resource links but doesn't describe what these links contain, how they're formatted, whether the operation is idempotent, or any performance characteristics like rate limits. The description is minimal and fails to provide essential behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as by hinting at the link types or usage context.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (returns multiple links of different types), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the resource links are, their format, or what 'different types of resources' means. For a tool that presumably returns structured data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to interpret results.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage and only one parameter ('count') fully documented in the schema, the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't explain why 'count' matters or how it affects the returned links, so it doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 states the tool 'returns multiple resource links that reference different types of resources', which provides a vague purpose. It specifies the verb 'returns' and resource 'resource links', but doesn't clarify what these links are used for or how they differ from similar tools like 'getResourceReference' or 'getTinyImage'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention any context for usage, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'getResourceReference' and 'getTinyImage' that might handle related resources, the lack of comparative guidance leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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