GitMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all configuration values' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes, if there are rate limits, or if the list is paginated. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 gets straight to the point: 'List all configuration values'. There's no wasted words, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for this simple tool.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details about output format, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a basic list operation, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide complete context for reliable 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The description correctly avoids discussing parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is assigned for zero-parameter tools that don't mislead about inputs.

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 'List all configuration values' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('configuration values'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'config_get' (which retrieves specific values) and 'config_set' (which modifies values) by focusing on comprehensive listing. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it returns all values without filtering, which would make it a perfect 5.

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 like 'config_get' for retrieving specific values or 'config_set' for modifying values. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for usage, or explicit exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling relationships alone.

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