govuk-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying return behavior (content as a string, binary content base64-encoded) and URI handling for static vs. templated resources, but it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, auth needs, or error handling, keeping it at an adequate level.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by specific usage notes and return details. Every sentence earns its place by adding necessary information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (single parameter), high schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers key aspects like URI handling and return format, but lacks guidance on tool selection among siblings, slightly reducing completeness.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the single 'uri' parameter. The description adds marginal value by clarifying URI usage for static vs. templated resources, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema implies, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('resource by its URI'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_resources' or 'govuk_search', which might also involve resource access, so it misses the highest score.

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 some usage context by distinguishing between static and templated resources, but it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_resources' or 'govuk_search'. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving gaps in practical application.

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