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 discloses the core behavior (conversion), but does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., handling of invalid timestamps, timezone considerations, or output format variations). It adds basic context but lacks details on error handling or limitations.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every part of the sentence contributes essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 minimally complete. It covers the basic transformation but lacks details on output format (e.g., timezone inclusion) or error behavior. For a simple conversion tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral 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%, with the parameter 'timestamp' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'seconds or milliseconds' further). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('Convert') and the transformation ('Unix timestamp to ISO 8601 date string'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'iso_to_timestamp' (reverse operation) and 'timestamp_now' (generates current timestamp). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 when needing to convert a Unix timestamp to a human-readable ISO format, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'iso_to_timestamp' or 'timestamp_now'. The context is clear, but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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