shapeshift

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains sandbox behavior in detail (best-effort, force, opt-out), the confirm parameter for community sources, and the unmounting process. It does not elaborate on potential side effects like process termination beyond unmounting, but coverage is solid.

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 well-structured with code-like examples and clear sections. It is somewhat lengthy but each line adds value. Could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no required, 0% schema coverage), the description is highly complete. It covers main functionality, parameter behaviors, and example usages. An output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description.

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 0%, so the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It explains the key parameters: server_id (empty unmounts), sandbox (None default, True forces, False opts out), source (auto|local|smithery|official), confirm (for community sources), and tools (via examples). This is comprehensive.

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: 'Mount an MCP server's tools at runtime.' It provides specific verb+resource actions, including mounting, unmounting, and various configurations. The examples distinguish it from sibling tools like reload, search, etc.

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 gives explicit examples of when to use different options (e.g., mounting with specific tools, sandbox modes, unmounting). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough to infer appropriate use.

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