ugcmind_capabilities

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds contextual details like 'live', 'provider availability', 'access rules', and 'async task contract'. This goes beyond the annotation by indicating the tool returns real-time operational and contractual information, which is valuable for agents.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the key action and subject. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose, achieving high conciseness with no redundancy.

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 read-only catalog inspection tool with a single enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and the facets of the catalog. It does not explain response structure, but this is acceptable given the simple nature and the parameter's schema 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?

The single parameter 'view' has 100% schema description coverage, explaining that it limits the catalog scope. The tool description does not add further parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 uses a specific verb 'Inspect' and names the resource 'UGCmind MCP tool catalog' plus associated aspects like provider availability and access rules. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform content generation or asset 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 implies when to use the tool: to inspect the live catalog for capabilities, provider availability, and contracts. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use list_models for model-specific info'.

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