mcp__C2d

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads a file and sends it to the backend, and includes parameter constraints. However, it does not mention destructive behavior, idempotency, permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. The transparency is moderate but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured with separate sections for parameter details and a note. It is concise overall, though there is minor redundancy (the tool's purpose is stated both at the beginning and implicitly at the end). A slightly more streamlined version would improve efficiency, but it remains clear and scannable.

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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers input semantics but omits any mention of return values, error handling, or what happens after the file is processed. This is a significant gap for an agent to use the tool correctly, as it has no information about expected responses or failure modes.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between fileId, shortLink, and layerId, including examples and explicit restrictions (e.g., 'pageid/page_id will not be treated as layerId'). This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter usage.

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: 'send code files to MasterGo MCP service for C2D processing, synchronizing user code to the design draft.' It uses a specific verb (send/sync) and resource (code to design), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like extractSvg and getComponentGenerator by being the only code-to-design tool.

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 detailed parameter usage guidelines (e.g., when to provide fileId vs shortLink, restrictions on layerId) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools. No sibling comparisons or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned, leaving usage decisions implicit.

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