mcp-cohesity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's purpose and output scope ('detailed information... including per-object restore status'), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits, which are important for a read operation.

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 output detail ('per-object restore status'). It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and output scope, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or response format, which would be helpful for an AI agent to use it correctly in varied contexts.

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 documents both parameters ('id' and 'include_tenants') fully. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of 'include_tenants' in context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema handles parameter documentation.

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 detailed information') and resource ('a specific Cohesity recovery task'), including the scope of information ('including per-object restore status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_recovery_tasks' by focusing on a single task's details rather than listing multiple tasks.

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 specifying 'a specific Cohesity recovery task,' suggesting it should be used when you have a task ID and need detailed status. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'list_recovery_tasks' for broader queries.

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