heor-agent-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively reveals key traits: the idempotent nature ('Idempotent — returns existing project if already created'), the prerequisite requirement for other tools, and the initialization of specific resources. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like file system changes or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by critical behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The structure is logical and efficiently conveys key points in minimal text.

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 tool's complexity (initialization with idempotency) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and key behavior. However, it lacks details on what the tool returns (since no output schema exists) and doesn't fully address all potential side effects or error cases, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Initialize a new HEOR project workspace'), the resources involved ('directory skeleton and project.yaml metadata'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings by explaining its prerequisite role for using the 'project' parameter in other tools. It goes beyond a simple tautology by detailing what initialization entails.

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 this tool ('Required before using the `project` parameter in other tools') and provides a clear alternative scenario ('returns existing project if already created'). This gives the agent precise guidance on timing and fallback behavior without misleading information.

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