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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Close') but doesn't explain what happens when a page is closed (e.g., whether it's destructive, if the page session ends, error conditions, or side effects). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and parameter details in a brief 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (a mutation with one parameter), no annotations, but an output schema exists (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter but lacks behavioral details (e.g., effects, errors) and usage context. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall completeness is limited for safe invocation.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'page_id' by specifying it's 'Page ID to close,' which clarifies its role beyond the schema's generic 'Page Id' title. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail ID format or sourcing (e.g., from 'cloak_list_pages'). A 5 would require more specifics like examples or 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 action ('Close') and target ('a specific page by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cloak_close' (which might close something else) and 'cloak_list_pages' (which lists pages). However, it doesn't specify what 'close' means operationally (e.g., terminating a browser tab vs. hiding a UI element), leaving some ambiguity compared to a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open page), exclusions (e.g., not for closing other resources), or related tools like 'cloak_launch' or 'cloak_new_page' for context. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list alone.

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