Core Content Services MCP Server

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 discloses key behavioral traits: the tool determines the document's class, fetches metadata, filters out system and hidden properties, and returns property display names. This covers the process and output, though it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or rate limits. Since annotations are absent, the description adds substantial value beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, adds details on behavior and usage, and ends with parameter and return explanations. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, usage, process, parameter semantics, and return value. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return format, and it adequately covers the tool's context for effective agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the single parameter 'identifier' by explaining it can be a document ID (GUID) or path (e.g., '/Folder1/document.pdf'), which clarifies usage beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. This effectively covers the parameter's semantics, though it doesn't detail validation or constraints.

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: 'Retrieves a list of class-specific property names for a document based on its class definition.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('class-specific property names'), and scope ('for a document based on its class definition'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_document_properties' or 'get_class_property_descriptions' by focusing on property names specific to a document's class.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this tool when you need to know what custom properties are available for a specific document, which can then be used for targeted property extraction or search operations.' It provides clear context and purpose, guiding the agent on appropriate scenarios without mentioning alternatives, which is sufficient for a top score.

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