my-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'returns content with metadata annotations' and 'demonstrates MCP annotation capabilities,' which gives some context about output behavior. However, it lacks details on side effects, error handling, or performance characteristics like rate limits or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool that modifies content presentation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding by an AI agent.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, parameters, and return behavior. Since an output schema is present, the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it could benefit from more behavioral context or usage scenarios to fully guide the agent.

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 context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'messageType' determines the type of message ('error', 'success', or 'debug') and 'includeImage' controls whether an example image is included. This clarifies the purpose and usage of parameters, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail format or constraints beyond the enum.

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: 'Demonstrates different annotation patterns for MCP tool responses. Returns content with metadata annotations based on the message type.' It specifies the verb ('demonstrates'), resource ('annotation patterns'), and scope ('MCP tool responses'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'structuredContent' or 'echo' which might also involve content formatting.

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 mentions the purpose but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for testing, debugging, or production use, or how it differs from siblings like 'structuredContent' that might handle similar tasks.

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