Elenchus MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool records results, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits such as whether this is idempotent, requires specific permissions, affects system state (e.g., updates session status), or has side effects like triggering notifications. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words, 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 the complexity of a mutation tool (recording verification results) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, side effects), expected outcomes, or error handling. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'sessionId', 'filePath', 'issuesFound', 'severities'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'severities' relates to 'issuesFound') or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Record results') and the context ('from random sampling verification of a skipped file'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'elenchus_get_issues' or 'elenchus_submit_round' by focusing on recording verification results rather than retrieving issues or submitting general rounds. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'elenchus_submit_llm_evaluation' in terms of 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage after sampling verification, but it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., after 'elenchus_start_reverification'), exclusions, or direct comparisons to siblings like 'elenchus_submit_round'. This leaves the agent to infer context without clear operational boundaries.

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