Shared Memory MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions waiting behavior but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it blocks execution, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or what happens on timeout. For a tool with potential blocking effects, this is a significant gap in 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely involves asynchronous waiting with potential side effects, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or operational constraints, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly in a workflow context.

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 parameters (session_id, dependency_key, timeout_minutes). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a 'dependency' entails or how the waiting mechanism works, resulting in a baseline score.

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 action ('wait for') and resource ('a dependency'), specifying it waits for availability. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_session_info' or 'update_session_status' that might involve session states, making it clear but not sibling-distinctive.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_session_info' or 'update_work_status' that might relate to session or dependency states, the description lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.

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