CloakMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: content cleaning (strips navigation, ads, footers), token efficiency (60-80% savings vs raw HTML), and output format (markdown). However, it doesn't mention error conditions, performance characteristics beyond efficiency, or what happens with invalid page IDs.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: first states what it does, second provides usage context, third describes cleaning behavior, fourth explains efficiency benefit. The parameter section is clearly separated and concise.

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 handles return values), no annotations, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does well. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and parameter meaning. The main gap is lack of error handling or edge case information, but for a read-only content extraction tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 provides meaningful context for both parameters: 'page_id: Target page ID' and 'max_length: Max characters to return (default: 50000)'. This adds practical understanding beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain page ID format or max_length enforcement behavior.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get', 'Strips', 'returns') and resource ('page content as clean, readable markdown'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on content extraction rather than navigation, interaction, or page management like cloak_navigate, cloak_click, or cloak_list_pages.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Best for reading articles, docs, search results, or any content-heavy page') and mentions efficiency benefits. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the use case implies it's for content extraction rather than page manipulation.

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