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. It mentions the algorithm (BFS) but doesn't describe performance characteristics (e.g., time complexity for large graphs), what happens if no path exists, or output format details. For a path-finding tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (graph path-finding), the description is minimal. It lacks details on output (though an output schema exists, which helps), error handling, and behavioral traits. With no annotations and a simple input schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in edge cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('start' and 'end' nodes). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as node format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: '두 노드 사이의 최단 경로를 BFS로 탐색한다' (finds the shortest path between two nodes using BFS). It specifies the verb (탐색한다/finds), resource (경로/path), and algorithm (BFS). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'causal_chain' or 'explain_node', which might also involve path-related operations in a graph context.

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 or contexts where BFS might be preferred over other algorithms, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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