sprout-mcp

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 mentions that 'customer_id' defaults to an environment variable, which adds some context about parameter handling. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what the output looks like (though an output schema exists, the description doesn't hint at behavioral traits like read-only nature or potential side effects).

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, starting with the core purpose in the first sentence and following with parameter details. There is no wasted text, and the structure is clear, though it could be slightly more polished (e.g., by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly).

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 (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should still address when to use the tool and any behavioral traits.

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 semantics for the single parameter 'customer_id', explaining it as a 'Sprout customer ID' and noting it defaults to an environment variable. With schema description coverage at 0% (the schema only provides a title and type), this compensates well by clarifying the parameter's purpose and default behavior, making it highly valuable beyond the basic schema.

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 the resource 'message tags for a customer', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_customers' or 'list_groups', which would require more context about what 'message tags' are versus other listable entities.

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a customer ID, or compare it to other list tools (e.g., 'list_customers' for customers vs. 'list_tags' for tags). The only implicit context is the customer focus, but no explicit usage rules are given.

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