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 mentions that including object details 'can increase response size', which is useful context about performance implications. However, it lacks information on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the structure of the returned data, leaving significant gaps for a tool that retrieves detailed operational data.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral note about response size. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a performance note but omits critical details such as the format of returned data, authentication requirements, potential errors, or how to interpret the 'per-object status and statistics'. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying that 'include_object_details' affects the level of detail in the response, but it doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or usage tips. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('specific Cohesity backup run'), specifying the scope of information retrieved ('per-object status and statistics'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_protection_runs' by focusing on a single run's details rather than listing multiple runs, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 when detailed information about a specific backup run is needed, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_protection_runs' or 'get_protection_group'. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for invocation.

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