razz-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses the destructive side effect ('Clears the mention queue after reading') and data source differences ('from server' vs. 'tracked while connected'). Minor gap: doesn't specify return format structure or empty-state behavior.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: (1) purpose, (2) return value details, (3) side effects, (4) sibling alternatives. Front-loaded with the core action 'Check for new DMs and @mentions.' No redundant or filler text.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value conceptually (unread DMs and @mentions) and the critical queue-clearing side effect. Sibling differentiation is clear. Slight gap: lacks specifics on return data structure or pagination.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters. Per guidelines, 0 params = baseline 4. The description correctly does not invent parameters, and the absence of parameters is implicitly clear from the descriptive focus on automatic retrieval of notifications.

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 uses specific verbs ('Check for') and resources ('DMs', '@mentions'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming 'read_dm_history' and 'read_messages' as alternatives for getting full content, establishing this tool's scope as a notification checker rather than a full reader.

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?

Explicitly provides when-not-to-use guidance by directing users to 'read_dm_history or read_messages to get full content,' implying this tool returns notification metadata/previews only. Also clarifies the dual data sources (server vs. real-time) to set correct expectations.

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