agency-mcp-server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context by specifying what status information is returned (last update time, update availability, agent count), which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output details without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and effective.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), rich annotations, and simple purpose, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the returned information, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. A minor gap exists in not detailing potential error conditions or update mechanisms, but overall it is sufficient for the context.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, as none exist, and instead focuses on the output semantics. This exceeds the baseline of 3 by clearly compensating for the absence of an output schema by detailing what information is returned.

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 ('Check') and resource ('agent index'), listing exactly what information is returned (last update time, update availability, agent count). It distinguishes from siblings like agency_browse, agency_search, and agency_update by focusing on status monitoring rather than browsing, searching, or updating operations.

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 implies usage context (monitoring agent index status) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like agency_update for updates or agency_search for querying. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage guidance at an implied level rather than explicit.

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