Shared Memory MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that discoveries benefit 'other workers' but doesn't explain how this happens, whether notifications are sent, what permissions are required, whether this is a write operation, or what happens after adding a discovery. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it appropriately concise for a tool description.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after adding a discovery, what format the 'data' parameter should contain, how discoveries are stored or accessed, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more context about the tool's role in the worker system.

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 documents all 5 parameters with their types, descriptions, and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 'adds a discovery that other workers can benefit from', which provides a basic purpose (adding discoveries) but lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'discovery' in this system. It doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'publish_output' or 'declare_outputs' that might also share information between workers.

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. With sibling tools like 'publish_output', 'declare_outputs', and 'get_discoveries_since', there's no indication of when this specific discovery-adding tool is appropriate versus other information-sharing mechanisms in the system.

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