mcp-starter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Hello tool' gives no indication of whether this is a read/write operation, what permissions might be required, what side effects occur, or what the response looks like. It's completely inadequate for behavioral understanding.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide necessary information, making it inefficient rather than well-structured. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide meaningful content.

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 a tool with one parameter but no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool does, how it behaves, or what it returns. For even a simple tool, this description fails to provide the minimum necessary context for effective use.

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 schema has 100% description coverage with the parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'The name of the person to greet.' The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Hello tool' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what it does. It doesn't provide a clear verb+resource combination or explain the tool's function beyond the obvious name. While it doesn't mislead, it fails to articulate any meaningful purpose.

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, what context it's appropriate for, or any alternatives. There are no sibling tools, but the description still offers zero usage context, leaving the agent with no information about application scenarios or prerequisites.

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