agency-mcp-server

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

Annotations already indicate it's read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns 'matching agents with file paths and a spawn template', specifies to 'return the subagent's response directly to the user without summarizing it', and outlines the multi-step workflow. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with <usecase> and <instructions> tags, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. Slightly verbose in step-by-step instructions, but each sentence earns its place by clarifying the workflow. Could be more concise by merging some steps.

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 (multi-step workflow), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, usage, and output behavior (though no output schema exists). Minor gap: doesn't detail error cases or result format beyond 'matching agents'.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it mentions 'task description as query' but the schema already describes this). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('find and launch', 'search', 'returns matching agents') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing it's for searching before spawning, unlike agency_browse, agency_status, or agency_update which likely serve different functions.

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?

It provides explicit usage instructions: when to use ('call this before spawning any agency subagent'), how to use (steps 1-4), and alternatives are implied through sibling tool names. The <usecase> tag reinforces the specific context for this tool.

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