config__open_relay

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

Annotations indicate openWorldHint=true, suggesting side effects. The description adds specific behavioral details: it opens the browser, returns the relay URL and credential state, and auto-respawns the daemon if dead. This provides useful context beyond the annotations, though it could disclose potential failures or prerequisites.

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 three concise sentences, each adding essential information: the main action, return values, and a behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and has no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description explicitly lists return values (relay URL, browser launch status, credential state). It also mentions an important behavioral aspect (auto-respawn). However, it does not specify the exact format of the returned data or behavior in case of failure, which would enhance completeness. Overall, it is adequate for a 0-param tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter information because none is needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adequately compensates by explaining the tool's behavior and return values.

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 relay configuration form') and the target resource ('for better-notion-mcp'), along with the return values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like the generic 'config' tool, as it is specifically about the relay configuration.

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 clear context on what the tool does (opening the relay config form in the browser), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the specificity of the tool and its distinct purpose make usage guidance implicit.

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