Elenchus MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a destructive operation ('rollback') but doesn't specify effects (e.g., data loss, reversibility, or impact on related sessions). No information on permissions, rate limits, or error handling is included, which is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. This efficiency is ideal for a tool with a straightforward 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects), usage context, and return values, leaving significant gaps. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools, more completeness is needed to guide an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying 'sessionId' and 'toRound' are used for rollback, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints (e.g., valid round ranges). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 ('rollback') and target ('session to a previous checkpoint'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'elenchus_checkpoint' or 'elenchus_get_project_history' that might involve session state management, leaving some ambiguity about its specific role in the toolset.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing session with checkpoints) or exclusions (e.g., not for reverting specific actions). This lack of context makes it unclear how it fits with siblings like 'elenchus_checkpoint' or 'elenchus_end_session'.

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