mcp-cohesity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but reveals minimal behavioral traits. It indicates this returns 'all registered' sources but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when filters return no results. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides inadequate behavioral context for a list 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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key differentiators.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what resource is listed but lacks context about the return format, pagination, or relationship to sibling tools. The absence of annotations means more behavioral disclosure 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 the schema fully documents both parameters. The description mentions no parameters at all, providing zero additional semantic context beyond what's already in the structured schema. This meets the baseline of 3 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 ('all registered Cohesity protection sources'), and provides specific examples (vSphere, Physical servers, NAS, SQL). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_source' which likely retrieves a single source, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list_* tools like list_protection_groups.

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 when to use list_sources versus get_source (for single source details) or other list_* tools for different resource types. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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