config__open_relay

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. Description adds the important detail that the tool 'Auto-respawns the daemon if it has died,' which is a behavioral trait not captured in annotations. Also explains what is returned (relay URL, browser launched, credential state).

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and return values, second adds the auto-respawn behavior. No unnecessary words, well-structured and front-loaded.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and simple functionality, the description is fully complete. It explains the action, return values, and an important behavioral side-effect (auto-respawn). The openWorldHint annotation aligns with the tool's nature.

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?

Tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by listing the return information (relay URL, browser launch status, credential state), which helps the agent understand the tool's output without needing an output schema.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Open'), the resource ('relay configuration form for better-notion-mcp'), and the return values (relay URL, browser launch status, credential state). Sibling tools like 'config' are not specific to relay configuration, so this tool is well-distinguished.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other config tools). The description implies it's for opening the relay config form, but does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternative approaches.

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