SHOW_AVAILABLE_FORMATS

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool 'returns' formats, indicating a read-only operation with no side effects. No further behavioral traits (e.g., security, rate limits) are needed for this trivial tool. The description is fully transparent about its action.

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 short sentence that conveys complete meaning without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 trivial complexity (no inputs, no side effects, no output schema), the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what it will get: the list of supported formats. No additional context is necessary.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty). Following guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate because there are 0 parameters. The description adds no param info, but none is needed.

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 returns a list of supported audio/video file formats from the mocoVoice MCP server. It uses a specific verb ('返却する' meaning 'return') and a specific resource ('音声・動画ファイル形式'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that handle transcription jobs or file listings.

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 when one needs to know supported formats, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., checking formats vs. starting a job). No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are included. For a simple informational tool, this is adequate but lacks proactive direction.

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