Core Content Services MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains the matching algorithm (substring matches), result limits (up to 3 matches), error conditions (ToolError if no matches), and return format (ClassMatch objects with scores). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or performance characteristics.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, IMPORTANT prerequisite, parameter explanations, and return specification. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 complexity (keyword matching with prerequisites), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by the returns description), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, parameters, and return format. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context about the matching algorithm's specifics (case sensitivity, exact vs. fuzzy matching).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics. It explains that 'root_class' should be a class name like 'Document' or 'Folder' and that 'keywords' should contain 'up to 3 words from the user's message that might contain the class's name,' adding crucial context beyond the bare schema.

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 with specific verbs ('find classes that match given keywords') and resources ('class names and descriptions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_all_classes' and 'list_root_classes' by specifying substring matching functionality rather than listing all classes.

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 explicit usage guidance in the IMPORTANT section, stating that users MUST first call 'list_root_classes_tool' to get valid class names. It also specifies when to use this tool (for keyword-based class matching) versus alternatives (the prerequisite tool for valid class names).

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