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 states the tool returns summary statistics but doesn't specify what those statistics include (e.g., node count, edge density), whether it's a read-only operation, performance characteristics, or error conditions. For a 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 appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool and front-loads the core purpose ('현재 위키 그래프의 전체 요약 통계를 반환한다'). Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 (simple read operation with no parameters), the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details on what 'summary statistics' entail, but the presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral context, it leaves gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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: '현재 위키 그래프의 전체 요약 통계를 반환한다' (returns summary statistics of the current wiki graph). It specifies the verb ('반환한다' - returns) and resource ('위키 그래프' - wiki graph), distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_path' or 'explain_node'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'rebuild_graph' or 'causal_chain' in terms of scope or output type.

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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'explain_node' (for detailed node info) or 'find_path' (for graph traversal). The agent must infer usage based solely on the tool name and description.

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