knowledgelib-mcp

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds valuable lifecycle context ('Reports are reviewed and used to prioritize content updates'), but does not elaborate on side effects, persistence behavior, or what the caller should expect after submission (e.g., confirmation of receipt).

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose (sentence 1), usage triggers (sentence 2), and post-submission behavior (sentence 3). Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 5 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, invocation triggers, and downstream workflow. It could be improved by noting whether the operation is synchronous or if it returns a report ID, but it is sufficient for agent selection.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema carries the heavy lifting for parameter semantics. The description maps general concepts ('incorrect, outdated, or broken') to the tool's domain but does not add syntax details, validation rules, or usage examples beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Flag') and clear resource ('content on a knowledge unit'), explicitly stating the tool's function. It effectively distinguishes this tool from retrieval-oriented siblings like get_unit or query_knowledge by focusing on error reporting rather than data access.

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?

Provides explicit positive guidance ('Use this when you notice factual errors, dead links...') that clearly scopes when to invoke the tool. However, it lacks explicit negative guidance or named alternatives (e.g., 'Do not use for general questions; use query_knowledge instead'), which would earn a 5.

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