instances

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool's scope (server config), actions, and return structure. It also notes that auth is write-only, adding important behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a compact return format listing. It front-loads the purpose and includes no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (8 parameters, 1 required, no nested objects), the description covers the overall purpose, scope, and return structure. It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand usage without additional context.

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 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by summarizing actions, showing the output format, and noting the write-only nature of auth, which goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 reads or modifies configured Kodi instances, with explicit actions (get/set/remove). It distinguishes from sibling tools by clarifying it manages the MCP server's own config, not a Kodi device.

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 specifies that the tool manages the MCP server's own config, implying it is not for direct Kodi control. While it doesn't list explicit alternatives, the scope is clear, and sibling tools cover other functions.

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