Iconsult MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: deterministic matching ('same description always produces the same concept ranking'), embedding similarity method, ranked output with scores, consultation_id creation for session tracking, and fingerprint generation. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, but covers core behavior thoroughly.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core function, explaining deterministic behavior, and providing usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the most important information and contains no wasted words.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides strong context about behavior, workflow role, and deterministic nature. It could benefit from mentioning output format details (since no output schema exists), but otherwise covers the essential context well given the complexity.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides about project_description, max_results, or similarity_threshold. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('match', 'returns', 'creates') and resources ('project description', 'knowledge graph concepts', 'consultation_id'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning its role as an 'ENTRY POINT' and explicitly naming related tools (get_subgraph, ask_book) for subsequent steps.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('ENTRY POINT'), when to use alternatives (pass consultation_id to get_subgraph and ask_book for step logging), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_concepts. It establishes clear sequencing in a workflow.

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