CloakMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it clears the field by default, can press Enter when submit=True, and returns an updated snapshot. It covers mutation behavior, default actions, and output format, though it doesn't mention error conditions or permission requirements.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by behavioral details, then a well-organized Args section. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (5 parameters, mutation behavior), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral details, and parameter semantics comprehensively, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 5 parameters in the Args section: page_id (target page ID), ref (ref ID from snapshot with examples), text (text to type), clear (clear field before typing with default), and submit (press Enter after typing with default). It adds essential 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 specific action ('Type text into an input'), identifies the target resource ('by its [@eN] ref ID from cloak_snapshot'), and distinguishes it from siblings like cloak_click or cloak_press_key by focusing on text input functionality. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement.

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 about when to use this tool ('Type text into an input by its [@eN] ref ID from cloak_snapshot'), implying it should be used after obtaining a snapshot. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for similar actions.

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