Noleemits Vision Builder MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, error handling (e.g., if page_id is invalid), rate limits, or what the return format might be (e.g., JSON with fields). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste—'Get details of a specific page' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, potential response structure, or error conditions, which are critical for an agent to use the tool effectively. This is a significant gap for a tool in a complex sibling set.

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%, with the single parameter 'page_id' documented as 'ID of the page'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., numeric ID) or context (e.g., where to find the ID). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get details of a specific page' clearly states the action (get) and resource (page), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_pages' (list) or 'create_page' (write). However, it doesn't specify what 'details' include, leaving some ambiguity compared to tools like 'get_page_structure' or 'get_seo_data' that target specific aspects.

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. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used for retrieving basic page info versus more specialized tools like 'get_page_structure' for layout details or 'get_seo_data' for SEO metrics, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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