Iconsult MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it's deterministic ('same consultation always produces same scenarios'), includes specific outputs (walkthroughs with file:line references, coverage mapping, warnings), and mentions cascading failure analysis. It doesn't cover rate limits or auth needs, but provides substantial operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with 'STRESS TEST' and key purpose, but could be slightly more concise by integrating some details (e.g., 'Deterministic' note) more seamlessly. Most sentences earn their place by adding value.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well to explain the tool's behavior, outputs (scenarios with specific elements), and prerequisites. It could improve by hinting at return format or error handling, but covers complexity adequately for a stress-test tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'consultation_id' or 'max_scenarios', though it implies 'consultation_id' relates to analysis sessions mentioned in the usage guidelines.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('generate concrete failure scenario walkthroughs') and resources ('missing/partial patterns'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'score_architecture' or 'health_check' by focusing on stress testing and failure analysis rather than evaluation or monitoring.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Requires pattern_assessment steps from step 3') and provides context for its application ('STRESS TEST'), with no misleading guidance. This helps differentiate it from alternatives like 'consultation_report' or 'critique_consultation' by specifying prerequisites.

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