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 the tool lists runs with specific attributes, but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list structure, pagination), error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'List' but not explicit). This is a significant gap for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

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 without unnecessary words. Every element ('List recent backup runs', 'for a Cohesity protection group', 'with status, duration, and data size') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'max_results' but not described). For a list tool with filtering options and no structured output documentation, 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying filtering capabilities ('recent backup runs') and listing attributes ('status, duration, and data size'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('recent backup runs for a Cohesity protection group'), with specific attributes mentioned ('status, duration, and data size'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_protection_run' (singular) by indicating it lists multiple runs, 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid protection group ID), when not to use it, or how it compares to siblings like 'get_protection_run' (for a single run) or 'list_protection_groups' (for listing groups instead of runs).

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