loaditout-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It compensates well by detailing the exact return structure (JSON array with specific fields including quality_score, security_score, install_command), which substitutes for the missing output schema. It lacks explicit mention of read-only safety or rate limits, preventing a perfect score.

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 consists of five sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, followed by output specification, and closed with usage guidelines. Every sentence provides distinct value (scope, return format, positive/negative usage conditions, alternative preference) with zero 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?

Given the rich input schema (100% coverage) and lack of output schema, the description appropriately focuses on compensating for the missing return value documentation by enumerating response fields. It provides sufficient context for an agent to select this over siblings like 'get_skill' and understand the discovery workflow.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed explanations for all four parameters (query, type, agent, limit), including examples and enum value descriptions. The description text adds no additional parameter semantics, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the exact resource ('Loaditout registry of 20,000+ AI agent skills'), and specifies the method ('by keyword'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_skill' by stating when to use each.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use ('broad discovery when you do not know the exact skill slug'), when not to use ('Do not use this if you already know the slug'), and names specific alternatives ('use get_skill instead', 'Prefer smart_search'). This covers when/when-not/alternatives completely.

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