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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'declares' outputs but doesn't explain what this means: whether it's a registration step, if it's idempotent, what permissions are required, or what happens after declaration. For a tool with three required parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.

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 complexity (three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the operational context (e.g., how this fits into a worker lifecycle), what happens after declaration, or potential errors. For a tool that seems critical in a session/worker workflow, more contextual information is needed to guide proper use.

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 fully documents the three parameters (session_id, worker_id, output_keys). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the relationship between these parameters or provide examples of output_keys. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose as declaring what outputs a worker will produce, which is clear but vague. It specifies the action ('declare') and resource ('outputs this worker will produce'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'publish_output' or explain what 'declare' means operationally. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about how this differs from related output-handling tools.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session or worker), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'publish_output' or 'create_agentic_session'. Without any usage context, an agent must infer when this declaration step is appropriate in a workflow.

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