MCP Infra Lens

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

Adds valuable context that output is 'human language' explanations (natural language prose rather than structured data) and focuses on 'anomalies'. Aligns with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. No contradictions 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?

Single 11-word sentence efficiently conveys dual purpose: data collection and natural language analysis. No redundancy, front-loaded with primary action, every clause earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a diagnostic tool with openWorldHint covering external connectivity. Captures output format (human language) which compensates for missing output schema. Could mention SSH/connectivity requirement explicitly given security implications, but schema covers connection details sufficiently.

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 coverage is 75% with all leaf parameters (host, port, duration, toggles) well-documented. Description implies metric collection but doesn't add parameter-specific semantics or authentication requirements beyond the schema. Baseline 3 appropriate for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Clear verbs 'Collect' and 'explain' with specific resource 'metrics' and scope 'anomalies'. Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_history' via focus on anomaly explanation, though could more explicitly contrast with 'compare_to_baseline' or 'snapshot'.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this diagnostic tool versus siblings like 'compare_to_baseline', 'record_baseline', or 'get_history'. No mention of SSH prerequisites or when live analysis is preferred over historical comparison.

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