sailfishos-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the command to run but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't mention that this is a destructive operation (removes files), requires prior project setup, or has no output schema. The description is minimal, offering little beyond the command syntax.

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, direct sentence with zero waste—it states exactly what the tool does without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple command-execution tool and front-loaded with the essential action.

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 (a destructive build cleanup) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'clean' entails (e.g., removing build files), potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool with behavioral implications, more context is needed beyond the command string.

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 'projectDir' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the command runs inside a build directory, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Run') and the specific command to execute, making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on cleaning build artifacts rather than building, deploying, or creating projects. However, it doesn't explicitly name the resource being cleaned (e.g., 'clean build artifacts'), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage in a build directory context but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., after a build) or compare it to siblings like sailfish_build. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the command alone.

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