gerbil-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (lists exports) but doesn't mention behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, if there are rate limits, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a concrete example that reinforces usage. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and provides an example, but lacks details on behavioral traits and output format, which are important for a tool with no annotations. This meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 'module_path' with examples. The description adds value by providing an additional example (':std/text/json' returns read-json, write-json) that illustrates the output semantics, going beyond the schema's input-focused documentation. With only one parameter, this earns a high score.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('exported symbols from a Gerbil module'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on module exports rather than syntax checking, evaluation, or other operations. The example reinforces the specific 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 implies usage through the example (e.g., for module ':std/text/json'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gerbil_list_std_modules' or 'gerbil_apropos'. It provides context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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