Token-Efficient MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'progressive disclosure' but doesn't explain what each disclosure level entails, whether the operation is read-only, if there are rate limits, or what format the output takes. The behavioral characteristics are underspecified for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and parameter options. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 with enum), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers the progressive disclosure concept but lacks details about output format, pagination, or error conditions that would be helpful for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the 'level' parameter's purpose (progressive disclosure) and lists the three enum values, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail what each disclosure level specifically returns.

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: listing available token-efficient tools with progressive disclosure options. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'token-efficient tools', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_tools' or 'get_token_savings_report'.

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 sibling tools like 'search_tools' or 'get_token_savings_report', nor does it specify appropriate contexts or exclusions for using this listing function.

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