diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that status reports non-secret config, summary is bounded, and open returns a clickable URL with a Download-ZIP button. However, it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., whether 'open' launches anything or just returns a URL) or any rate limits.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, each covering one action with its output. Front-loaded with the tool's purpose and no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors and outputs. It could mention whether 'open' has side effects or how the viewer URL is delivered, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum values are described in the schema. The description adds meaningful context for each action value, but since the schema already lists them, the added value is moderate. 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 identifies the tool as inspecting the codesign MCP server and enumerates three distinct actions (status, summary, open) with specific outputs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on server diagnostics rather than assets, editing, or auth.

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 explains what each action returns and notes that status is the default, giving an agent clear context for choosing an action. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the diagnostic scope is clear enough that an agent can infer when it's appropriate.

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