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 states the tool lists pages but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it returns only active pages, if there are rate limits, how it handles errors, or the format of the output (though an output schema exists). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all open pages') and specifies the returned data ('IDs and URLs'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place, 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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and siblings that might overlap (e.g., cloak_read_page), it lacks context on usage scenarios, error handling, or behavioral nuances. It meets basic needs but could be more complete for agent selection.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is given as it efficiently handles the lack of parameters without unnecessary elaboration.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all open pages'), specifying what information is returned ('IDs and URLs'). It distinguishes from siblings like cloak_navigate or cloak_new_page by focusing on listing existing pages rather than navigation or creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from cloak_read_page, which might also retrieve page information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a browser must be launched first), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like cloak_read_page. It's a basic statement of function without contextual usage advice.

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