mcp-rubber-duck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool asks questions to multiple ducks but doesn't explain what 'ducks' are (e.g., AI models or providers), how responses are returned, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs, leaving significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and earns its place by conveying the core purpose succinctly.

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 complexity of querying multiple providers and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'ducks' are, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.

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 has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the 'prompt' is asked to all ducks, which is already clear from the schema. 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 action ('Ask the same question') and target ('multiple ducks simultaneously'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'ask_duck' (singular) or 'duck_debate' (which might involve comparison), leaving room for ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'ask_duck' for single queries or 'duck_debate' for interactive discussions. The description implies simultaneous questioning but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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