cronalert-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'public status pages' and 'for your account', which clarifies scope but doesn't detail aspects like pagination, rate limits, or response format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only operation) and lack of an output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields included) or mention any limitations like pagination, which could be important for an agent using this tool effectively.

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 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable here since there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all public status pages configured for your account'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_monitors' or 'list_incidents', which prevents 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_monitors' or 'list_incidents', nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual constraints. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.

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