agent-link-mcp

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

Annotations indicate it's not read-only (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive (destructiveHint: false), with open-world behavior (openWorldHint: true). The description adds value by explaining the return behavior ('returns a question if the agent needs clarification, or a result when done'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't detail other behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, keeping it at a moderate score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently explains the return behavior in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and return behavior but could improve by mentioning potential side effects (e.g., resource usage) or linking to sibling tools for better context, preventing a perfect score.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all 9 parameters, including their types, descriptions, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating 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 specific action ('spawn an AI agent') and the resource ('to work on a task'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_agents' (listing), 'kill_agent' (terminating), and 'reply' (responding). It also specifies the outcome ('returns a question if the agent needs clarification, or a result when done'), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 for delegating tasks to AI agents, with context from sibling tools suggesting it's part of an agent management system. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'spawn_agents' (plural) or prerequisites, such as agent availability or system requirements, which would elevate it to a 5.

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