mcp-cohesity

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 describes the tool as a read operation ('Get detailed information'), which implies it is non-destructive, but does not address other behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 front-loads the core purpose and specifies the types of information retrieved. There is no wasted verbiage, and it effectively communicates the essential details without redundancy, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 retrieving detailed protection group information, the description is incomplete. No annotations are provided, and there is no output schema, so the description does not explain the return values or behavioral traits. While the purpose is clear, the lack of guidance, transparency, and output details makes it inadequate for full contextual understanding.

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 both parameters ('id' and 'include_last_run_info') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Cohesity protection group', specifying what information is retrieved: 'detailed information including configuration, schedule, and last run status'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_protection_run' or 'list_protection_groups', which reduces the score from a 5.

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 does not mention when to choose this over 'list_protection_groups' for a single group or 'get_protection_run' for run-specific details, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual usage information results in a low score.

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