Shellagent MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the basic action ('Get application information') without adding any context about permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the returned information includes. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: 'Get application information using app_id'. It's a single sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the core purpose and parameter usage. This makes it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 lack of annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'application information' includes, how errors are handled, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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, with the parameter 'app_id' fully documented. The description mentions 'using app_id', which aligns with the schema but doesn't add any extra meaning beyond what's already provided. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 when no additional parameter info is given.

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: 'Get application information using app_id'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('application information'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, since there are no sibling tools, it doesn't need to differentiate from alternatives, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score of 5.

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. It simply states what the tool does without mentioning any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. There are no sibling tools, so no differentiation is needed, but it still lacks any usage instructions.

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