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. It states the tool updates status, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to related data (e.g., if 'result' is required for 'completed' status). This is inadequate 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 with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action ('Update the status'). It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent 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 a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error conditions), doesn't fully explain parameter interactions (e.g., 'result' dependency on 'status'), and omits return values or success indicators, leaving significant gaps for agent invocation.

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 75%, with three parameters documented ('session_id', 'unit_id', 'result') and one ('status') having an enum but no description. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying 'status' updates and hinting at 'result' for completed units, offering minimal value over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 'Update the status of a work unit' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('work unit status'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'work unit' entails in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_session_status' or 'claim_work_unit', leaving room for ambiguity.

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 a valid session or claimed unit), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings such as 'update_session_status' for session-level updates or 'claim_work_unit' for initial assignment, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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