mcp-cohesity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what information is returned (severity, description, resolution status) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by max_results), rate limits, authentication requirements, whether it's read-only, or what happens with large result sets. For a list tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a list tool and front-loads the essential information (list alerts with key attributes). Every word earns its place.

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 6 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks behavioral context. For a list tool with filtering capabilities, it should ideally mention pagination behavior, result format, or usage constraints. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 6 parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps. 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 ('List') and resource ('Cohesity cluster alerts') with specific attributes mentioned (severity, description, resolution status). It distinguishes from siblings like 'resolve_alert' by focusing on listing rather than resolution, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_protection_groups' 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparisons with other tools like 'get_cluster_info' for cluster status or 'resolve_alert' for alert management. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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