shapeshift

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full weight. It discloses that mounting makes tools available, unmounting kills the process and uninstalls (clean slate), and keep=True keeps the pool warm for quick reattach. It also mentions environment variable for skipping community trust gate, though it does not elaborate on other 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 well-structured with an initial purpose statement, examples, and bullet points for parameters. It is front-loaded with a clear example. While some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'unmount' variations), it remains informative without excessive verbosity.

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?

The description covers core functionality and all parameters thoroughly, given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no required ones). An output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains each parameter: server_id (mount target), tools (filter tools), keep (keep pool warm), confirm (proceed after reviewing), source (install source), server_args (extra CLI arguments). Examples illustrate usage, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a server (with server_id) or unmount the current form (without server_id), with examples showing both operations. It distinguishes from siblings like auth, auto, call, search, status, which are about authentication, automation, or data retrieval, not server management.

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 concrete usage scenarios: mount with server_id, unmount without, unmount with keep=True. It also explains parameters like source, tools, confirm, and server_args. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives among siblings, though siblings are unrelated, so the guidance is sufficient.

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