sailfishos-mcp

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 behaviors: it reads from multiple sources (spec file, git, local directory), allows overrides, appends metadata as the last paragraph of %description, and wraps it in conditional macros. It doesn't mention error handling, permissions needed, or side effects on the spec file.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains the core functionality and data sources, the second details the output format and conditional wrapping. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and how it behaves. It explains the transformation process and output format, though it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure or provide examples of the injected metadata block.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds context about auto-detection mechanisms (git config, git remote + icons directory) and the purpose of categories, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Inject SailfishOS:Chum metadata into the RPM spec'), the resource ('existing project'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on metadata injection rather than building, deploying, or creating projects. It provides concrete details about what data is read and how it's formatted.

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 implies usage when adding Chum metadata to an existing SailfishOS project, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sailfish_create_project' for new projects or 'sailfish_build' for compilation. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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