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 retrieves documentation (a read-only operation) and mentions content types like accessibility rules, which hints at behavioral scope. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with no 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by specific usage guidance. Every word contributes to clarity without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and content scope adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or limitations, which would be helpful since no output schema is provided.

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 already fully documents both parameters (topic and section). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool covers 'design foundations' and 'UI patterns', which aligns with the topic parameter's description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'Salt Design System documentation', specifying content types like usage guidelines, best practices, accessibility rules, and patterns. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on documentation retrieval rather than examples (get-component-example), properties (get-component-props), listing (list-components), or searching (search-components).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this to answer questions about how and when to use Salt components, design foundations, and UI patterns.' It implicitly suggests alternatives by mentioning specific content types (e.g., 'examples' for code examples, which might be better served by get-component-example), though it doesn't name siblings directly.

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