CloakMCP

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 mentions that the tool returns an updated snapshot, which is useful, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this action requires specific page states, if it's idempotent, potential error conditions, or performance implications. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear Args section that efficiently documents parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan 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 has an output schema (which covers return values), the description is reasonably complete for a mutation tool. It explains the action, parameters, and return, but lacks details on prerequisites, error handling, or behavioral nuances, which are important given the absence of annotations and the tool's interactive nature.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'page_id' is the 'Target page ID', 'ref' is the 'Ref ID from snapshot', and 'checked' determines whether to check or uncheck. This clarifies the semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail on ref ID format or page_id constraints.

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 ('Check or uncheck a checkbox/radio by ref ID') and the resource ('checkbox/radio'), distinguishing it from siblings like cloak_click or cloak_select by focusing on toggle operations rather than generic interactions. It explicitly mentions the return value ('Returns an updated snapshot'), which further clarifies its purpose.

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 for interacting with checkboxes/radios via ref IDs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cloak_click for general clicks or cloak_select for dropdowns. It provides basic context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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