Decide Test MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Returns structured information' which indicates a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what format the structured information takes. The description is minimal beyond stating the basic function.

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 two concise sentences that efficiently state the purpose and return value. It's front-loaded with the main function. No wasted words, though it could potentially provide more context given the complexity of the parameters.

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 tool with 4 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'structured information' means, how the guidance is generated, or provide context about the test planning process. The description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered.

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 the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., doesn't explain how 'test_case' or 'auth' objects should be structured). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'Get guidance and example steps for planning API tests' with the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'guidance and example steps'. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'execute_api_test' (execution vs. planning) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_web_test_guidance' (API vs. web).

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 implies usage context ('for planning API test steps') and mentions the sibling 'Claude' as the intended user, but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like 'generate_test_code' or 'parse_decision_table'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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