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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's behavior ('check if syntactically valid,' 'uses the Gerbil expander to verify expansion') but lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics, or output format. It adequately covers the core operation but misses additional context like rate limits or response structure.

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 front-loaded and concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and method. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and scope, and the second explains the underlying mechanism. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (validation without execution), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers what the tool does and how, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. It's adequate for basic understanding but could be more comprehensive for agent use.

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 (code and imports). The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 ('check if Gerbil Scheme code is syntactically valid') and resource ('Gerbil Scheme code'), distinguishing it from siblings like gerbil_eval (which evaluates) and gerbil_expand_macro (which expands macros). It explicitly notes the tool 'uses the Gerbil expander to verify the code can be expanded,' providing technical specificity.

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 ('check if Gerbil Scheme code is syntactically valid without evaluating it'), implying it's for validation rather than execution. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, though the purpose differentiation suggests gerbil_eval as an alternative for evaluation.

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