EpicMe MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'prints' (implying read-only output) and mentions its debugging purpose, which is helpful context. However, it doesn't describe the output format, whether sensitive data might be exposed, or any rate limits - leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Prints all environment variables') followed by the specific use case. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate but minimal information. It explains what the tool does and its primary use case, but doesn't describe the output format or any behavioral constraints. For such a simple tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the description doesn't attempt to discuss non-existent parameters.

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 specific action ('Prints all environment variables') and the resource being acted upon ('environment variables'). It also distinguishes this tool's purpose from sibling tools by specifying its debugging use case for MCP server configuration, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('helpful for debugging MCP server configuration'), providing clear context for its application. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes, which prevents a perfect score.

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