mcp-server-devutils

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the transformation behavior (cron expression to plain English) but doesn't disclose error handling, format limitations, or performance characteristics. The description is accurate but lacks depth about behavioral traits beyond the core function.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal structure, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. It clearly defines what the tool does, though it could benefit from mentioning output format details or error scenarios to enhance completeness 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%, with the parameter 'expression' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid formats or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('explain') and the resource ('a cron expression'), specifying the output format ('in plain English'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cron_next (which predicts next run times) and cron_validate (which checks syntax), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 by specifying 'in plain English', suggesting this tool is for human-readable interpretation rather than validation or scheduling. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like cron_validate or cron_next, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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