djd-agent-score-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable cost context ('FREE endpoint') and documents the return structure ({status, version, uptime}), compensating for the missing output schema without contradicting annotations.

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 structured sentences: action definition, cost characteristic, and return value documentation. No redundancy or wasted words; information is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 zero-parameter health check with comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It documents the return payload (compensating for lack of output schema) and operational characteristics (free) necessary for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, warranting the baseline score of 4. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource ('DJD Agent Score API system status'), distinguishing it from siblings like score_basic or get_leaderboard which perform business logic rather than system monitoring.

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 'FREE endpoint' note provides implicit guidance about cost-free usage, but the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus other tools (e.g., 'use before calling score endpoints to verify connectivity') or prerequisites.

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