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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'efficiently' and 'pagination,' but lacks critical details like performance expectations, error handling, file size limits, or output format. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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—two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a practical usage tip. Every word serves a clear function, 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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, performance traits, and how it differs from siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use it confidently without trial and error.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only explicitly mentioning 'offset' for pagination and implying pattern matching. It doesn't clarify interactions between parameters or provide examples, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Process log files efficiently with pattern matching and pagination.' This specifies the verb ('process'), resource ('log files'), and key capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'process_csv' or 'batch_process_csv' beyond the log file focus, preventing a perfect score.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions using 'offset to skip previous matches,' which hints at pagination scenarios, but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, alternatives, or exclusions compared to siblings. Without context on when to choose this over similar tools, guidance is insufficient.

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