willow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation, which implies non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if ID doesn't exist), permissions, rate limits, or return format. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits needed for safe invocation.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear, direct language. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, making it highly concise 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 complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, error conditions, return values, and how it differs from sibling tools like store_search. For a data retrieval tool with multiple identifiers, more context is needed for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'ID' as a parameter, ignoring 'app_id' and 'collection' entirely. This leaves two of three parameters without semantic context, failing to clarify their roles in locating the value within the SQLite store structure.

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 specific action ('Read a value') and target resource ('from the local SQLite store by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like store_put (write), store_delete (delete), and store_list (list all). It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 usage for retrieving specific stored values by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like store_search (search by criteria) or store_list (list all items). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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