mcp-cohesity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation but doesn't describe pagination behavior (though 'max_results' parameter hints at it), authentication requirements, rate limits, whether results are sorted, or what happens when no filters are applied. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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 operation and front-loads the essential information. 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?

For a list operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned (beyond mentioning 'status, type, and progress'), doesn't describe the response format, and provides no context about typical usage patterns. With no annotations and no output schema, more descriptive content would be helpful.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'status, type, and progress information' which aligns with some parameters but doesn't provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 recovery tasks') with specific attributes ('status, type, and progress information'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_recovery_task' which presumably retrieves a single task, 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate versus other list tools or the singular 'get_recovery_task', nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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