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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the return format (Markdown with source links) and what the guide contains, but says nothing about failure modes for an invalid slug or whether content is cached/static.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, key, content scope, and output format with zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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 simple read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is fetched and in what form. The remaining gap is guidance on obtaining a valid slug and error behavior, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of meaning, and it merely says lookup is 'by slug' without format, examples, or valid-value guidance. It implies the parameter's role but adds little operational detail beyond the schema's 'string' type.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (full sourced setup guide) and even enumerates the content scope (settings, commands, config files) plus the lookup key (slug) and output format (Markdown with source links). It is unambiguous on its own, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_atlas or get_mcp_server.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. where a valid slug comes from), and no routing against siblings such as search_atlas. The only usage signal is the implicit 'by slug', which an agent must infer.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the returned content (install commands for five clients, plus tools and auth details), but says nothing about failure modes or what happens when the slug is unknown or unofficial.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded ('Get install commands...'), followed by the enumerated extras. No wasted text, though the auxiliary clause list is slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the install commands, tools, and auth details returned. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool, missing only error/edge-case behavior.

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 0% for the single 'slug' parameter. The description partially compensates by indicating the slug addresses an 'official MCP server', which adds some meaning, but it gives no format, case, or sourcing hints for the slug value.

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 (Get) and a concrete resource (install commands, tools, and auth details for an MCP server by slug). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_guide or search_atlas.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to the sibling tools (get_guide, get_pricing, search_atlas). An agent must infer usage entirely; the only implicit cue is 'by slug', suggesting a direct lookup rather than a search.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds one piece of genuine behavioral context the annotations don't carry: data is 'copied from vendor pricing pages,' implying a snapshot that may not be live. It stops there, with no note on freshness, coverage, or what happens when harness is omitted.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the parameter hint. No filler; the provenance clause in sentence one is slightly tangential but still informative.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description should at least sketch the return shape and the no-argument behavior. It conveys the resource well but leaves the default case (all harnesses?) unspecified.

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 0% and the schema is a bare string, so the description carries the burden and mostly does: it names harness as a slug and supplies concrete example values ('cursor', 'claude-code'). It doesn't enumerate valid slugs or clarify the default/aggregate behavior when omitted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieves coding agent plans and prices. The resource differs clearly from siblings (get_guide, get_mcp_server, search_atlas), though the description doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource (use this to look up pricing) and the optional harness argument is explained, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_guide/get_mcp_server, nor any exclusion or prerequisite stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully clarifies the output shape (config content plus the file path to write it to) and thus implies the tool does not itself write files, but it does not state whether existing config is merged, auth/permission needs, or any limits.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns and what is required, then appends two targeted sentences. The 15-value client enumeration largely repeats the schema enum and is the only real padding, but the overall length is proportionate to the tool's scope.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does identify both the generated config and the target file path. It stops short of explaining config format, merge behavior with existing files, or error cases for unknown clients/slugs.

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 50%: 'servers' is documented with a slug example, while 'client' is only an enum. The description restates the full client list (duplicating the enum) and adds one genuinely useful pointer for resolving server slugs via search_atlas, but adds little semantic depth on the parameters themselves.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (ready-to-write MCP config) plus the exact scope (one client, one or more official MCP servers) and the output artifact (file path). It also routes the agent to the sibling search_atlas for slug lookup, so the tool is distinguishable from its siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: use this when you need a config for a specific client, and call search_atlas (type mcp_server) first to obtain valid server slugs. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings like get_mcp_server or get_guide, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful context about data sources (GitHub, Hacker News) and content categories, but omits behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, freshness, or pagination. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the tool's outputs without any filler. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, and no restructuring is needed.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content. However, it leaves a clear gap by not explaining how to use the kind parameter or what happens when it is omitted, which could lead to incorrect invocation.

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 0% and there is one optional enum parameter (kind) with no documentation. The description loosely describes the three content categories (repos, discussions, people) but never mentions the parameter name, its enum values, default behavior, or how to select a category, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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's scope: trending items in AI agents across GitHub repos, Hacker News discussions, and people to follow. It is specific about the resource and content types, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings or name an alternative, keeping it from a 5.

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 only lists what the tool returns; it never states when to use this tool instead of the siblings (e.g., get_guide, search_atlas) or any prerequisites. Usage is implied at best, with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — 'Every entry is sourced from vendor docs' — which tells the agent results are curated/vendor-verified. It says nothing about ranking, result limits, pagination, or empty-result behavior, which a search tool should disclose.

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?

Front-loaded with verb and resource, and the closing sentence about vendor-doc sourcing is short and earns its place. The middle enumeration is long but functional since it enumerates the searchable index. No filler or repeated information.

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?

With only two parameters at full schema coverage and no output schema, the bar is low, and the description successfully conveys the corpus being searched. It stops short of describing what a result looks like or how to go from a search hit to the sibling retrieval tools, leaving a gap for a discovery tool with no output schema.

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%, with both the query string and the type enum fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's list of content categories loosely mirrors the enum values but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and a named resource (AgentAtlas) and enumerates the covered content types, which map cleanly onto the type enum. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings get_guide/get_mcp_server, which appear to be per-entry lookups rather than discovery — the agent must infer that relationship.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumeration of guides, MCP servers, benchmarks, etc. suggests this is the broad discovery entry point, and the query example ('cursor sandbox') hints at free-text search. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_guide or get_mcp_server, nor any exclusion.

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