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 returns a snippet but doesn't describe output format, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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. It wastes no words and directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, and integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be beneficial for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear enum values for 'pattern' and 'language'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it mentions 'SailfishOS pattern' and 'code snippet' but doesn't elaborate on parameter meanings or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 tool's purpose: 'Return a ready-to-use code snippet for a common SailfishOS pattern.' It specifies the verb ('Return') and resource ('code snippet') with context ('SailfishOS pattern'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'sailfish_guidelines' or 'sailfish_pitfalls', which might provide similar educational content.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for generating code snippets, but it doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings such as 'sailfish_create_project' or 'sailfish_build' in a development workflow.

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