mcp-tailscale

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' information (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, potential side effects, or output format. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured network data. It lacks details on return format (e.g., JSON structure), error conditions, or how the map is used in practice. For a tool with potential complexity in output, this leaves significant gaps 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't incorrectly suggest otherwise.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('DERP relay map for the tailnet'), with additional detail about what it shows ('all DERP regions and their relay nodes used for traffic routing'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like status or device-related tools by focusing on network infrastructure mapping.

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 implies usage for viewing DERP relay information, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for network diagnostics vs. general status). It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

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