prune_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the optional pruning behavior, which is good, but does not disclose whether pruning is destructive or modifies the input array, nor does it explain how scoring works or potential side effects.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds the optional pruning feature. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description is adequate for the input parameters but does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., ranked list with scores). Without an output schema, the description could have provided that context. It covers the basic function but lacks completeness for the agent to fully understand the outcome.

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 input schema already documents all parameters clearly. The tool description adds no additional detail beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'score and rank' and 'prune', clearly identifies the resource as 'MCP tools', and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like classify_task or compress_context by focusing on relevance scoring and optional pruning.

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 implies use for filtering tools by intent, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., classify_task) or when not to use. No exclusions or context cues provided.

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