aesthetics-wiki-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it specifies that the tool 'Excludes tiny icons and SVG placeholders' (filtering behavior not indicated by annotations) and mentions the return format. Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world characteristics, but the description supplements with practical implementation details.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clearly labeled sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, provides parameter semantics, describes key behavioral traits (filtering exclusions), and references the return structure—all without needing to duplicate schema information.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantics for both parameters: 'name' is explained as 'Page title (e.g. "Cottagecore", "Dark Academia")' with examples, and 'limit' as 'Max number of images (1-50). Default 12.' This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Get image URLs') and resource ('from an aesthetic's wiki page'), with the phrase 'perfect for moodboards' providing practical context. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_aesthetic' (likely returns general info) and 'search_aesthetic' (likely searches for aesthetics) by focusing specifically on image extraction.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('perfect for moodboards'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools. The agent can infer usage from the purpose, but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection scenarios.

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