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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it performs an upsert operation (implying mutation), logs a state_write step, and handles JSON-serializable values. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like overwriting existing data or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 highly concise and well-structured: it starts with a clear purpose, immediately provides usage guidelines, and includes essential behavioral details without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema), the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and key behaviors. However, it lacks details on return values or error handling, which would be helpful for completeness, though not strictly required without an 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that the value is 'JSON-serializable' (implied by the schema's description). This 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 specific action ('Upsert a key-value pair') and resource ('in consultation shared state'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_state (which presumably reads rather than writes). The purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use for subagent coordination') and provides concrete examples ('store discovered concepts, current phase, conflict markers, or any JSON-serializable value'), clearly differentiating it from alternatives like read_state for retrieval.

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