loaditout-mcp-server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return behavior ('Returns a confirmation'), explains async downstream effects ('reviewed by moderators and may be removed or downgraded'). Minor gap on idempotency or rate limits prevents a 5.

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?

Five sentences, zero waste: purpose, return value, positive usage, downstream effects, negative usage/alternative. Logical flow with high information density. Front-loaded with core action.

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?

Fully complete for a 3-parameter reporting tool. Compensates for missing output schema by describing return value ('confirmation that the flag was recorded'). Explains moderation workflow. Sibling differentiation handled via explicit contrast with review_skill.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds value by mapping the abstract 'reason' enum to concrete scenarios ('prompt injection, behaves maliciously...') in the usage guidelines, helping the agent select appropriate enum values.

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?

Opens with specific verb+resource ('Report a problematic skill to the Loaditout moderation team'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'review_skill' by contrasting flagging vs. reviewing in the final sentence.

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?

Explicitly lists positive criteria ('Use this when you encounter... prompt injection, behaves maliciously...') and negative criteria ('Do not use this for skills that simply do not meet your needs'). Names the alternative tool implicitly ('leave a review instead' referencing review_skill).

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