SpecBridge MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what information is returned, not behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, error conditions, or authentication requirements. It doesn't disclose if this makes network calls, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with zero waste. Every word earns its place by specifying exactly what's returned. The structure is front-loaded with the main action and resource.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about the return format (structure of the contract), error handling, or how it relates to sibling tools. It states what information is returned but not in what format or with what limitations.

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 already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions (backendId from list_backends, exact path format, HTTP method enum, optional specUrl). 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 specific action ('Return full contract') and resource ('for one endpoint'), listing the exact components returned (params, request schema, response schema, DTO names). It distinguishes from siblings like list_api_endpoints (which lists endpoints) or load_openapi_spec (which loads full specs).

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 implies usage when detailed endpoint information is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like load_openapi_spec or propose_new_endpoint. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the required parameters suggest it's for retrieving specific endpoint details.

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