iconnect-mcp

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

Annotations already provide important behavioral hints (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds valuable context about the semantic nature of the search and cross-app connections, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'semantically related' specifically means.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides a concrete example. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only semantic search tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains the cross-app nature and gives a concrete example. The main gap is lack of output format information (no output schema exists), but the description compensates reasonably well given the tool's complexity.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the 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 tool's purpose: 'find semantically related items across all indexed Apple apps' given an ID. It specifies the resource types (note, event, reminder, email) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on cross-app semantic connections rather than basic search or CRUD operations.

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 this tool: when you have an item ID and want to discover cross-app connections. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the semantic focus differentiates it from most sibling tools (e.g., search_events, search_notes).

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