brainforge-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. The description states it 'retrieves all causal relationships' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether there are rate limits, what format the relationships are returned in, or if there are any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves') and resource ('causal relationships'). While concise, it could be slightly more informative given the lack of annotations and sibling tools, but it doesn't waste 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?

Given that there is an output schema (which should cover return values), no annotations, and a simple input schema with full coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety or performance, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools. For a tool with no annotations, it should provide more context about what 'retrieves' entails operationally.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'query' documented as 'node name or ID to search for'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't clarify what constitutes a valid node name/ID, provide examples, or explain how the query is processed. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 states the purpose as 'retrieves all causal relationships related to a specific node' which is clear but somewhat vague. It specifies the verb 'retrieves' and resource 'causal relationships', but doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'explain_node' or 'find_path' which might also retrieve node-related information. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'explain_node', 'find_path', 'graph_summary', or 'rebuild_graph', nor does it specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus when other tools should be used. There's no indication of prerequisites or exclusions.

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