Salt MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns story source code, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations such as availability of examples for all components, error handling, or format of the returned code, leaving gaps in transparency for a tool with no annotation support.

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 front-loaded and concise, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and output. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and 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 the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and output information but lacks details on return format, error cases, or dependencies. For a simple tool with one parameter and high schema coverage, it's minimally adequate but could be more complete by addressing behavioral aspects like what happens if the component doesn't have an example.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'component' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid component names or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Get Storybook example code') and resource ('for a Salt component'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns story source for component usage examples. This is precise and differentiates from tools like 'get-component-props' or 'get-salt-docs'.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'Storybook example code' and 'showing how to use the component,' suggesting it's for learning component implementation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-component-props' or 'search-components,' leaving the agent to infer based on the purpose.

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