CloakMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Returns an updated snapshot,' which hints at output behavior, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if selection triggers page changes), error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool (selecting implies changing state) with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, followed by a brief note on returns and a parameter list. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the parameter section could be more integrated. Overall, it's appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 complexity (a UI interaction tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and error details. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but other gaps remain for a mutation tool.

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 lists parameters and explains that 'value,' 'label,' or 'index' are alternatives for selection, adding meaning beyond the schema's basic types. However, it doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., if multiple are provided) or constraints, leaving gaps. Given the coverage gap, this is a minimal improvement.

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: 'Select a dropdown option by ref ID' with the verb 'select' and resource 'dropdown option'. It distinguishes from siblings like cloak_click or cloak_type by focusing specifically on dropdown selection. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other selection-related tools (none in the sibling list), so it's not 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 a page loaded via cloak_navigate or cloak_launch), nor does it differentiate from similar actions like cloak_click on dropdowns. The sibling tools include many UI interaction tools, but no context is given for choosing this one.

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