Amazing Marvin MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, as it lacks details on how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.

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 'Get kudos and achievement information' is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the action and resource, though it could be slightly more specific without losing conciseness. There's no waste, making it appropriately sized.

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 complexity of a tool that retrieves information (likely user-specific data), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and siblings that might overlap, it fails to provide enough context for effective use. It doesn't explain what 'kudos and achievement information' entails or how it differs from other get_* tools, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for missing info (since none is needed) and aligns with the schema.

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 'Get kudos and achievement information' states the action ('Get') and resource ('kudos and achievement information'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what specific information is retrieved (e.g., types of kudos, achievement metrics) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_account_info' or 'get_productivity_summary', which might overlap in scope. This meets the minimum viable threshold but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_account_info' (which might include kudos) and 'get_productivity_summary' (which could relate to achievements), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction, scoring low due to the absence of usage information.

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