Elenchus MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves statistics (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns real-time or aggregated data, or how it handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get cache statistics') and lists key metrics without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly, which is ideal for tool selection in an AI agent context.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or output format. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must rely on the description alone, which is incomplete for informed tool invocation, though not critically deficient.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter ('workingDir') documented as 'Working directory (optional, for context)'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as how 'workingDir' affects the statistics retrieval. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cache statistics'), listing key metrics like hit rate, total entries, and token savings. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on cache stats, unlike tools for optimization, issues, or session management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'elenchus_get_optimization_stats', which might overlap in scope.

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 prerequisites, timing, or context, such as whether it's for monitoring cache performance during optimization sessions or general diagnostics. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'elenchus_clear_cache', 'elenchus_estimate_savings'), the lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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