sailfishos-mcp

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. It states the tool lists pitfalls, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like response format, pagination, error handling, or performance. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to clarifying the tool's function.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it falls short of being fully complete.

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 description mentions 'specific SailfishOS development area', which aligns with the 'area' parameter in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage and a single parameter well-documented in the schema (including enum values and default), the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It provides basic context but no additional details on parameter usage or semantics.

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: 'List common mistakes and anti-patterns for a specific SailfishOS development area.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('common mistakes and anti-patterns'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sailfish_guidelines' which might have overlapping content. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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, exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'sailfish_guidelines' or 'sailfish_snippet'. Usage is implied through the parameter 'area', but no explicit context or alternatives are provided.

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