MCP Atlas

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 states the tool runs analysis to detect issues, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it modifies data, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output entails (e.g., error messages, reports). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse while conveying the essential information.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format implications (though 'format' parameter hints at this), and how it differs from siblings. For a migration analysis tool, more context on what 'issues' are detected or how results are used would improve completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the input schema with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'latest' and 'gitBase' affect analysis) or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Run analysis') and target ('migration directory') with the purpose 'to detect issues', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'migrate-validate' or 'migrate-diff' that might also involve analysis or validation of migrations.

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 like 'migrate-validate' or 'migrate-diff' from the sibling list. It mentions the general purpose but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, leaving usage context implied rather than stated.

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