mcp-humanpages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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 front-loads the purpose and details. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from returned data). Every part earns its place by specifying the resource and included stats.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and returned data, but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output information. For a read tool with minimal structured data, it meets a basic threshold but isn't fully complete.

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%, with the parameter 'agent_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('registered agent's public profile'), specifying what information is included ('reputation stats (total jobs, completed jobs, payment speed)'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_human_profile' by focusing on agents rather than humans, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other agent-related tools like 'get_activation_status' or 'verify_agent_domain'.

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 prerequisites (e.g., whether the agent must be registered), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'get_human_profile' (for humans) or 'get_activation_status' (for agent activation). Usage is implied only by the description's content.

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