brainforge-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval/query operation (조회한다) and mentions partial matching support, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens with ambiguous matches. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and what it returns. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides additional details about input and output. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for optimal front-loading.

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 an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain return format details. However, for a query tool with no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context about how the tool operates (e.g., search behavior, error cases, performance characteristics). The current description is adequate but leaves room for improvement given the complexity of graph query operations.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'query' well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds that it accepts '노드 이름이나 ID의 일부' (partial node names or IDs) and that it supports '부분 매칭' (partial matching), which provides useful context about the parameter's semantics beyond the schema's basic description. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: '노드의 상세 정보와 연결 관계를 조회한다' (retrieves detailed information and connection relationships of a node). It specifies the verb (조회한다/retrieves) and resource (노드/node), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_path' or 'graph_summary' beyond mentioning it returns node details and edges.

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 like 'find_path' (which likely finds paths between nodes) or 'graph_summary' (which might provide overall graph statistics). It mentions what the tool does but gives no context about when it's the appropriate choice among the available sibling tools.

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