heor-agent-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly through the verb 'Read' and specifies access limitations ('Only raw/ and wiki/ subtrees accessible'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid paths. It adds some behavioral context but leaves important operational details unspecified.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero waste. The first states the core purpose, the second clarifies path semantics, and the third specifies access limitations. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct, necessary information. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main functionality.

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 read operation with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but not complete context. It covers the what, where, and access limitations, but lacks information about return format, error handling, authentication needs, or performance characteristics. Given the simplicity of the tool and good schema coverage, this is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by clarifying that path is 'relative to project root' and providing example formats, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Read a file') and resource ('from a project's raw/ or wiki/ tree'), with explicit scope limitations ('Only raw/ and wiki/ subtrees accessible'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like knowledge_write (write vs read) and knowledge_search (search vs direct read).

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 about when to use this tool ('Read a file from a project's raw/ or wiki/ tree') and path requirements ('Path is relative to project root'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like knowledge_search for broader searching. The sibling tool list shows knowledge_search exists, but no direct comparison is made.

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