CloakMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: returns interactive elements with ref IDs for use with other cloak_* tools, explains performance characteristics ('FASTER, CHEAPER, and MORE RELIABLE'), and describes the difference between full=True and full=False modes. It doesn't mention error conditions or rate limits, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, usage guidance, parameter explanations, and comparative advantages. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The information is front-loaded with the most important guidance ('Call this BEFORE interacting with a page') appearing early.

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 complexity (accessibility tree capture with parameter options) and the presence of an output schema (which means return values don't need explanation), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, behavioral characteristics, and sibling tool relationships. The description provides all necessary context for effective tool selection and 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: page_id ('Target page ID from cloak_launch or cloak_new_page'), full ('Include text content alongside interactive elements' with detailed explanation of full=False vs full=True), and max_length ('Max characters to return' with default value). The description adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Capture the page's accessibility tree' and specifies it's 'the PRIMARY way to understand pages.' It distinguishes from sibling cloak_screenshot by stating it's 'FASTER, CHEAPER, and MORE RELIABLE' and should be 'Always prefer this over cloak_screenshot for deciding what to click.' The description provides specific verb+resource differentiation.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call this BEFORE interacting with a page' and 'Always prefer this over cloak_screenshot for deciding what to click.' It clearly distinguishes when to use this tool versus the cloak_screenshot alternative and provides context about when to use full=True vs full=False modes.

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