Frisco 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 mentions 'persisted' (indicating storage durability) and 'events' (hinting at data structure), but fails to disclose read-only safety, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format details.

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 consists of a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action verb. There is no redundant or wasted language; every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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 low complexity (two primitive parameters, no nesting) and absence of an output schema, the description provides minimum viable context. It adequately explains what the tool retrieves but leaves gaps regarding the event data structure and operational constraints.

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 100% description coverage for both parameters ('sessionId' and 'lines'), establishing a baseline score. The description itself adds no explicit parameter semantics, relying entirely on the schema documentation to explain the optional session ID and line count constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('most recent events from persisted session logs'). The phrase 'most recent' effectively distinguishes this from the sibling 'get_logs' tool, though it doesn't explicitly name that alternative.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_logs' or other alternatives. While 'most recent' implies a use case for recent log inspection, there are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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