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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'curated' guidelines, suggesting authoritative content, but doesn't disclose format, length, source, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'Return'). For a tool with no annotations, this lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or output 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Return curated SailfishOS UI/UX and technical guidelines for a given topic') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise 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 one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'curated' entails, output format, or behavioral traits like error handling. For a simple retrieval tool, it's passable but could better address gaps from missing annotations.

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 'topic' fully documented in the schema including enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying topic-based retrieval, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles most documentation without extra value from the description.

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 ('Return curated... guidelines') and resource ('SailfishOS UI/UX and technical guidelines') with a specific scope ('for a given topic'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on guidelines retrieval rather than project management or code generation tasks, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'sailfish_pitfalls' which might also provide guidance.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for selecting topics, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'sailfish_pitfalls' that might offer related advice. Usage is implied only by the topic parameter, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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