List Multimeter examples

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds context about the tool's purpose (returning example structure) and provides guidance on when it should be invoked, but it does not elaborate on return format, pagination, or other behavioral nuances. The description adds modest value beyond the annotation.

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: the primary use case is stated first, followed by the exclusions. No wasted words, and every sentence contributes to agent understanding.

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?

For a simple tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient guidance on when to call it and what it returns (examples). It lacks detail on the output format, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity and the read-only annotation.

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% coverage, with each parameter properly described. The description does not add extra detail beyond the schema; it only reiterates the purpose. Per the calibration baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameters.

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: to retrieve example .mmt structures before creating or modifying files. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('examples') and differentiates from searching the repo or guessing YAML layout, making it easy for an agent to understand its exact role.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Call when you need example .mmt structure') and what to avoid ('Do not use testlight, npx, npm, shell, or node dist/mcp/server.js'). It also contrasts with the alternative of searching the repo. While it doesn't name sibling tools directly, the guidance is clear enough for proper selection.

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