Project MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as listing files 'organized by category,' which adds behavioral context beyond just listing. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), or potential rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 two concise sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second explains when to use it. There's no wasted words or redundancy.

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 (1 optional parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete for basic understanding. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context (e.g., return format, safety profile). The description covers the essentials but leaves room for improvement in transparency.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'category' parameter fully documented including enum options. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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: 'List all available documentation files organized by category.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('documentation files'), and adds context about organization. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_docs' or 'get_doc_structure', which appear related.

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 guidance: 'Use this to discover what documentation is available or to get an overview of the documentation structure.' This implies when to use it (for discovery/overview), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'search_docs' for filtered searches. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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