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 work units become 'available for workers to claim,' which implies a state change, but doesn't address critical aspects like whether this is idempotent, what permissions are required, error conditions, or how publishing affects existing work units. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with 2 parameters (one being a complex array), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, return values, and usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 50% (only 'session_id' has a description). The description mentions 'work units' but doesn't explain the structure or semantics of the 'work_units' array parameter beyond what's in the schema. It adds minimal value over the schema, which already defines the properties like 'unit_id', 'type', and 'priority' without descriptions.

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 ('publish') and resource ('available work units'), specifying the purpose as making work units available for workers to claim. It's specific about the outcome but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'claim_work_unit' or 'update_work_status'.

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 like 'claim_work_unit' or 'update_work_status', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a valid session. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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