gerbil-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior (substring matching across all namespaces using ##apropos) and gives an example, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. It adequately describes the core operation but misses advanced behavioral traits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. The example is relevant and adds clarity without unnecessary details, making every sentence earn 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic use. However, it lacks information on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, which could be helpful for an AI agent in a broader 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'pattern' as a string for substring matching. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'pattern string' and giving an example, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('search for', 'find') and resources ('Gerbil/Gambit symbols'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it searches across all namespaces using Gambit ##apropos. The example further clarifies the functionality.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching for symbols matching a pattern), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., gerbil_module_exports for specific modules). The example helps illustrate usage.

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