agent-link-mcp

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that it 'Continues the conversation,' implying it's part of a multi-step interaction. However, it lacks details on error handling, response format, or other behavioral traits. With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context, scoring a 3.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage. There is no unnecessary information, and each sentence serves a clear function. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming sibling tools or providing more detailed guidelines, so it scores a 4.

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 moderate complexity (interactive agent communication), no output schema, and annotations providing basic safety info, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the tool's role in continuing conversations but does not cover return values, error cases, or prerequisites. This makes it minimally viable but incomplete, resulting in a score of 3.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (agentId and message) well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here.

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: 'Reply to an agent that is waiting for clarification.' It specifies the verb ('Reply') and resource ('agent'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'spawn_agent' or 'kill_agent', which serve distinct purposes. The description is specific but lacks sibling differentiation, warranting a score of 4.

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: 'Continues the conversation until the agent returns a result or asks another question.' This suggests when to use the tool (during an ongoing agent interaction), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is implied rather than clearly stated, resulting in a score of 3.

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