search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a ranked list of server_ids with specific fields, records discovered servers in session for status(), and reports per-registry failures inline. This is thorough but could mention pagination or rate limits.

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?

Well-structured with short paragraphs, bulleted examples, and clear sections. Every sentence is informative without superfluous words. The use of code blocks for examples aids readability.

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 complexity (multiple registries, comparison feature, session recording), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral details. Output schema exists, so return values are unnecessary. Slight gap: no mention of error handling beyond inline failures.

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 50% (query and compare have descriptions; registry and limit only have titles). The description adds value by listing possible registry values ('all|official|...') and explaining the compare parameter with an example. Limit is not elaborated but has a default, so overall good compensation.

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 discovers MCP servers across registries and is the entry point to mounting. It explicitly uses the verb 'discover' and distinguishes itself from siblings like shapeshift() and inspect() by noting when to avoid it.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Avoid when' guidance, including example invocations with different parameters and a note on the 'compare' option. Clearly differentiates from alternatives.

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