arc-mcp

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 adds important context about the requirement for 'Arc restart' (a system-level impact) and implies a mutation operation ('Create'), but doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions needed, or what happens if the workspace already exists. This leaves gaps for a tool with significant side effects.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, and the second provides usage context and a critical behavioral constraint ('Requires Arc restart'). There's no wasted text.

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 (a mutation tool with system restart requirement) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and a key behavioral trait but lacks details on error conditions, return values, or prerequisites beyond the restart. For a tool with such impactful behavior, more context 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 all parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between 'name' and 'urls' or provide examples for 'icon'). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 specific action ('Create a new workspace'), specifies what it creates ('space + tabs'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_space' (which presumably only creates a space) and 'add_tab' (which adds to existing spaces). The phrase 'in one command' further differentiates it from using multiple tools.

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 clear context for when to use it ('Useful for setting up a focused context for a ticket or task'), which helps the agent understand appropriate scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings (e.g., 'create_space' vs. 'add_tab'), which prevents a perfect score.

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