Shared Memory MCP Server

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. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the session is immediately active, what happens if worker IDs are invalid, or what the expected response format might be. This is a significant gap for a creation tool with complex parameters.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool description and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

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 complex session creation tool with 7 parameters (3 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful creation, what gets returned, error conditions, or how this tool fits into the broader agentic workflow with its many sibling tools. The description leaves too many open questions for proper agent usage.

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 mentions 'shared context' which relates to the session's purpose but doesn't explain any of the 7 parameters beyond what the schema provides. With 57% schema description coverage (4 of 7 parameters have descriptions), the baseline is 3 since the schema does moderate work, but the description adds no additional parameter context to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Create a new agentic session') and the resource ('with shared context for coordinator and workers'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like 'get_session_info' or 'update_session_status'), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 14 sibling tools including session-related ones like 'get_session_info' and 'update_session_status', there's no indication of prerequisites, typical workflow context, or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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