openbci_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description is straightforward and indicates a read-only help operation. It does not mention any side effects or constraints, but for a help tool, the behavior is adequately transparent.

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 very concise, using a brief introduction and three bullet points. It is well-structured and to the point, with no unnecessary information.

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?

For a simple help tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the available operations and their high-level content. However, it could be slightly improved by mentioning that the output is text or a list of information.

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 schema provides enum descriptions for the 'operation' parameter, and the description adds context by briefly explaining each operation's content (e.g., 'Tool catalog and board keys' for overview). This adds value beyond the schema.

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 it is a 'Discovery and usage guide' for openbci-mcp and lists three specific operations (overview, quickstart, ports). This provides a clear purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actual operations. However, it could be more explicit about the scope.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like openbci_board or openbci_stream. It is implied that this is for help and documentation, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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