query_server_reputation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'query', implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on side effects, error behavior, idempotency, or any constraints. The mention of 'decentralized' and '8-dimension' adds some context but is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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 sentence, achieving conciseness, but at the cost of missing critical information. It is front-loaded but overly minimal for a tool with multiple parameters and many siblings.

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 two parameters (one undocumented) and no output schema, the description fails to explain the 8 dimensions, usage of packageName, or return format. It is incomplete for effective agent selection.

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 description does not mention any parameters, while the input schema has two parameters (serverName required, packageName optional) with zero schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the purpose of packageName unexplained.

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 queries decentralized MCP server reputation and specifies it's an 8-dimension consensus score. The verb 'query' and resource are specific, but it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_agent_reputation or compute_trust_score, making it slightly ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not provide context for selection among many reputation-related sibling tools (e.g., get_agent_reputation, compute_trust_score).

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