mcp-shipcheck

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that it provides explanations and suggests fixes. The '(read-only)' parenthetical reinforces the annotation while adding practical behavioral information about what the tool delivers. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed response format.

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 extremely concise (one sentence with parenthetical) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. The structure efficiently communicates the tool's function and safety characteristic in minimal space.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with good schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool does and its safety profile. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the description doesn't indicate what format the explanations and fixes will take, but this is partially compensated by the clear purpose statement.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'code' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage or examples.

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: 'Explain a shipcheck failure code and suggest fixes'. It specifies the verb 'explain' and resource 'shipcheck failure code', and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on failure explanation rather than audit or preview functions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings in the description text itself.

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 implies usage context (when a failure code needs explanation) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools shipcheck.audit or shipcheck.packPreview. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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