sprout-mcp

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 this is a retrieval operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or describe other behavioral traits like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the post ID doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe use.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first in a clear sentence. The parameter explanations are concise and directly relevant, with no wasted words or redundant information. The structure effectively communicates essential information efficiently.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are important for a retrieval tool with sibling alternatives and potential authentication implications.

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 description adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond what the schema provides. For 'post_id', it clarifies this is 'The publishing post ID to retrieve,' and for 'customer_id', it explains the default behavior ('Defaults to SPROUT_CUSTOMER_ID env var'). With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though it doesn't cover format details like ID structure.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('a specific publishing post by ID'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_post_analytics' or 'create_post', which would require more specific language about what makes this retrieval unique.

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. For example, it doesn't explain when to choose 'get_publishing_post' over 'get_post_analytics' or 'get_messages', nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.

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