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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'detailed information' and 'object hierarchy,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'object hierarchy' entails. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 ('Get detailed information about a specific Cohesity protection source'). It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from additional features like 'object hierarchy.'

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or how the 'object hierarchy' is presented, leaving the agent to guess at the output structure. For a detail-retrieval tool with no output schema, more context is needed to guide effective 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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (id, environment, include_entity_permission_info). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the significance of 'environment' values or how 'include_entity_permission_info' affects the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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') and resource ('detailed information about a specific Cohesity protection source'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_sources' by specifying retrieval of details for a specific source rather than listing multiple sources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other detail-retrieval tools like 'get_cluster_info' beyond the resource type.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a source ID from 'list_sources'), exclusions (e.g., not for bulk operations), or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_protection_group' for related data. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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